Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. and E&C Global, LLC, sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract and tort claims related to a construction project. The United States, through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), contracted with Isolux to build a substation, and Liberty issued performance and payment bonds for Isolux. After Isolux was terminated, Liberty hired E&C as the completion contractor, but E&I performed the work. Plaintiffs claimed Liberty failed to pay for the work completed.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted summary judgment for Liberty on the unjust enrichment claim and ruled in Liberty's favor on all other claims after a bench trial. The court denied Plaintiffs' untimely request for a jury trial, excluded an expert witness report filed after the deadline, found no evidence of an assignment of rights between E&C and E&I, and ruled against Plaintiffs on their fraud, deceit, and negligent misrepresentation claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the jury trial request, as Plaintiffs failed to timely file the motion and did not justify the delay. The exclusion of the expert report was also upheld, as the district court properly applied the relevant factors and found the late report was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The court affirmed the district court's finding that there was no valid assignment of rights from E&C to E&I, meaning Liberty's promise to pay was to E&C, not E&I. The court also upheld the findings that Liberty did not have the intent to deceive or induce reliance, and that Bruce did not reasonably rely on Mattingly's statements. Finally, the court declined to address the unjust enrichment claim as Plaintiffs did not raise the argument below. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings in their entirety. View "E&I Global Energy Services v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A county board of supervisors approved a nonprofit entity’s application to rezone a parcel of land in rural Polk County. Another nonprofit entity and several nearby landowners filed a lawsuit challenging the rezoning decision. The plaintiffs argued that the rezoning violated the county’s comprehensive land use plan, zoning ordinances, and constituted illegal spot zoning. The board of supervisors moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming the plaintiffs lacked standing and were subject to heightened pleading requirements under Iowa’s Municipal Tort Claims Act.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing and were subject to the Act’s heightened pleading requirements. The court found that the individual plaintiffs did not adequately allege their proximity to the rezoned property or their personal concerns, and that the nonprofit organization did not sufficiently allege that its members had a specific and personal interest in the rezoning. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs could not amend their petition due to the Act’s requirements.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the heightened pleading requirements and penalties under Iowa Code § 670.4A(3) did not apply because the plaintiffs were not seeking monetary damages. The court found that the individual plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged standing based on their proximity to the rezoned property and the nature of the proposed changes. However, the court concluded that the nonprofit organization had not established standing but should be allowed to amend its petition. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "1000 Friends of Iowa v. Polk County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

A property owner applied for a conditional use permit to build a commercial hog facility on its land in rural Cherry County, Nebraska. The facility was intended to provide manure for fertilizing the owner's crops. Neighboring landowners objected to the issuance of the permit, arguing that the owner, not being the operator of the facility, could not establish compliance with zoning regulations regarding odor mitigation and water contamination.The Cherry County Board of Commissioners issued the permit, and the neighboring landowners appealed to the district court, seeking a trial de novo. The district court held a trial and determined that the owner's application complied with the relevant zoning regulations, affirming the issuance of the permit. The neighboring landowners then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, while the Board cross-appealed, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the neighboring landowners' appeal.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court had jurisdiction over the appeal, as the relevant statutes did not limit the right to appeal to applicants only. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the property owner demonstrated compliance with the zoning regulations. The court held that the property owner, not the operator, was responsible for showing compliance with the regulations and that the odor and water contamination mitigation plans submitted by the owner were sufficient. The court affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the issuance of the conditional use permit. View "Amorak v. Cherry Cty. Bd. of Comrs." on Justia Law

Allan Gumarang entered into a lease agreement with Braemer on Raymond, LLC (Lessor) to operate an ice cream parlor. The lease included provisions requiring the Lessor to maintain the property and for Gumarang to obtain liability insurance and indemnify the Lessor against claims arising from his use of the property. In October 2017, a fire destroyed the property, and Gumarang alleged that the Lessor and its management (Management) failed to ensure the property had adequate fire prevention systems.Gumarang filed a lawsuit against the Lessor and Management for breach of contract, negligence, and other claims. In response, the Lessor and Management demanded that Gumarang defend and indemnify them under the lease terms. When Gumarang refused, they filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and breach of contract. Gumarang filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, arguing it arose from his protected activity of filing the lawsuit.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Gumarang’s anti-SLAPP motion in part, striking the cross-claims for comparative indemnity and equitable indemnity but denied it for the contractual indemnity and breach of contract claims. The court found that the latter claims did not arise from protected activity and that the indemnity provision in the lease was enforceable. The court also denied Gumarang’s request for attorney fees, finding he did not achieve a practical benefit from the partial success of his anti-SLAPP motion.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The appellate court agreed that the cross-claims for contractual indemnity and breach of contract did not arise from Gumarang’s protected activity of filing the lawsuit but from his alleged breach of the lease’s indemnity provision. The court also upheld the denial of attorney fees, concluding that Gumarang did not obtain a significant practical benefit from the partial success of his anti-SLAPP motion. View "Gumarang v. Braemer on Raymond, LLC" on Justia Law

Jose and Kirstin Aroca executed a "Note Secured by Deed of Trust" in 2007, agreeing to pay Tang Investment Company $40,000, secured by real property in Pinal County. They made interest-only payments for one year and then stopped. Tang did not initiate foreclosure or any action to enforce the debt, which remains unpaid. In 2022, the Arocas filed a suit to quiet title, claiming the Deed of Trust was invalid as the statute of limitations on the Note had expired.The Superior Court in Pinal County dismissed the Arocas' complaint, agreeing with Tang that under A.R.S. § 33-714, the Deed of Trust lien was valid until 2057. The court of appeals reversed, holding that A.R.S. § 33-714 did not extend the statute of limitations for foreclosure, which was governed by A.R.S. § 33-816 and A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(1), setting a six-year limit. The court concluded that Tang could not foreclose or initiate a trustee’s sale after 2018 and that the Arocas were entitled to quiet title under A.R.S. § 12-1104(B).The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case and held that the equitable principles from Provident Mut. Bldg.-Loan Ass’n v. Schwertner do not override the statutory rights established in A.R.S. § 12-1104(B). The court determined that an action to quiet title can proceed even if the underlying debt remains unpaid, provided the statute of limitations for enforcing the debt has expired. The court reversed the Superior Court's judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the Arocas, affirming their right to quiet title. The court also vacated parts of the court of appeals' opinion but left the attorney fees award intact. Tang's request for attorney fees and costs was denied. View "AROCA v TANG INVESTMENT" on Justia Law

Several residents of the City of Muscle Shoals filed a lawsuit against the City, seeking damages for negligence and trespass due to flooding caused by the City's management of a stormwater-drainage pond in their neighborhood. The plaintiffs claimed that heavy rainfall in February 2019 overwhelmed the pond, leading to the flooding of their homes. They argued that the City failed to plan adequately for such events and did not maintain the pond properly.The plaintiffs initially filed their complaint in the Colbert Circuit Court in March 2020, seeking damages for negligence, wantonness, and trespass. They later amended their complaint to drop the wantonness claim and added a request for injunctive relief, which the trial court denied. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by § 11-47-190, Ala. Code 1975, and that there was no substantial evidence to support the trespass claim. The trial court denied the City's motion, leading the City to file a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Alabama.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and determined that the City was immune from the plaintiffs' claims under § 11-47-190, Ala. Code 1975. The Court found that the City's decision to plan for 25-year rainfall events was within common municipal practice and did not constitute neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness. Additionally, the Court concluded that the City's design and maintenance of the pond were not defective within the meaning of the statute. As a result, the Court granted the City's petition and issued a writ directing the trial court to enter a summary judgment in favor of the City, effectively barring the plaintiffs' claims for damages. View "In re: Burrell v. City of Muscle Shoals" on Justia Law

Emmett Hotard acquired two lots in Hancock County in 2006 and used one as security for a loan from The Peoples Bank. After defaulting on the loan and failing to pay property taxes, Lot 17 was sold at a tax sale to Ken Foreman in 2012. The bank later assigned its interest to Emmett's brother, Eric Hotard, who initiated foreclosure proceedings. Eric's company, DHP1, LLC, purchased the lots at a foreclosure sale in 2014. The chancery clerk sent a notice of the tax sale to Emmett, which was returned undelivered. Notices were also sent to lienholders, including Eric.The Hancock County Chancery Court found that the chancery clerk failed to satisfy statutory notice requirements for the tax sale and declared the sale void. The court granted summary judgment in favor of DHP1, LLC, and voided the tax deed to Ken Foreman and the subsequent quitclaim deed to Baron Foreman, who had acquired Lot 17 from Ken.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the chancery court's decision. The court held that Emmett, as the record owner 180 days before the redemption period expired, was entitled to notice. The chancery clerk failed to provide proper notice by certified mail or personal service and did not conduct a diligent search for Emmett's address, which was easily discoverable in the land records. The court emphasized that any deviation from the statutory notice requirements renders a tax sale void. Consequently, the tax sale was declared void, and summary judgment in favor of DHP1, LLC, was affirmed. View "Foreman v. DHP1, LLC" on Justia Law

The Randy W. Stevens Living Trust owns land in Saratoga, Wyoming, bordered by an alleyway owned by the Town of Saratoga. Randy Stevens, the trustee, and Quality Landscape & Nursery, Inc., which uses the land, have had various disputes with the Town over the years. In 2019, a judgment was issued in favor of the Town, which the Stevens parties did not appeal. In 2023, the Stevens Trust and Quality Landscape filed a motion for an order to show cause and for a writ of mandamus, which the district court dismissed, citing res judicata and the parties' contractual limitations period. The court also found mandamus was not available under the circumstances.The district court of Carbon County had previously ruled on several issues between the parties, including the reconstruction of the alleyway, installation of utilities, and access to the property. The court found that the Town had acted in good faith and that the Stevens parties had failed to prove damages. The Stevens parties did not appeal these rulings. In 2023, they sought to revisit these issues, but the district court dismissed their motion, finding that the claims were barred by res judicata and the contractual limitations period.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the claims raised by the Stevens parties were barred by res judicata, as they had been or could have been litigated in prior proceedings. The court also agreed that mandamus was not an appropriate remedy, as the duties in question were not ministerial. Finally, the court found that judicial estoppel did not apply, as the Town had not taken inconsistent positions. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Stevens parties' motion. View "Stevens v. The Governing Body of the Town of Saratoga, Wyoming" on Justia Law

Harold Sheppard, Jr., who operates a plane salvage and trucking business, began leasing part of the South Big Horn County Airport in 2011 for a metal scrapping and recycling venture. In 2019, Big Horn County sued him for unpaid rent, resulting in a money judgment and an order to remove his property, which he did not comply with. In 2021, the County filed a $543,600 storage lien against his property. Sheppard then sued the Board of County Commissioners to stop the sale of his property, challenge the lien, and seek damages. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations in September 2022, leading to the vacating of a scheduled trial.The County Commissioners moved to dismiss Sheppard’s claims for failure to prosecute in January 2024, citing a lack of action since the September 2022 status conference. The district court granted the motion, dismissing the case with prejudice. Sheppard did not appeal this dismissal but filed a motion to reconsider under W.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) in March 2024, arguing that the dismissal was premature and that the court should enforce the settlement agreement before dismissing the case.The district court denied Sheppard’s motion, finding he failed to meet the burden for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Sheppard appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not recognizing the unusual circumstances and the existence of a settlement agreement. The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court noted that Sheppard failed to protect his legal interests by ensuring the settlement agreement and lease were executed and that his delay in filing the motion to reconsider was unreasonable. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Sheppard v. Board of County Commissioners, In and for Big Horn County, Wyoming" on Justia Law

In 2020, Article 13 LLC filed a quiet title action against LaSalle National Bank Association (now U.S. Bank) to discharge a mortgage as time-barred, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired since a foreclosure action was commenced in 2007. U.S. Bank contended that the statute of limitations had not expired because the 2007 foreclosure action was invalid to accelerate the mortgage debt. The district court found a disputed issue of material fact regarding the validity of the 2007 foreclosure action and denied both parties' motions for summary judgment.Following the district court's ruling, New York enacted the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), which bars the defense of the invalidity of prior accelerations of mortgages in quiet title actions. Article 13 LLC moved for reconsideration, and the district court applied FAPA retroactively, granting summary judgment in favor of Article 13 LLC. U.S. Bank appealed, arguing that FAPA should not be applied retroactively and that such retroactivity would be unconstitutional under both the New York and U.S. Constitutions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the questions of FAPA's retroactivity and its constitutionality under the New York Constitution were novel and essential to the resolution of the appeal. Consequently, the Second Circuit certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals: whether Section 7 of FAPA applies to foreclosure actions commenced before the statute's enactment, and whether FAPA's retroactive application violates substantive and procedural due process under the New York Constitution. The Second Circuit deferred its resolution of the appeal pending the New York Court of Appeals' response. View "Article 13 LLC v. Lasalle Nat'l Bank Ass'n" on Justia Law