Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Nichols is a resident, property owner, and taxpayer in the City of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Rehoboth Beach held a special election, open to residents of more than six months, for approval of a $52.5 million bond issue to finance an ocean outfall project. The resolution passed. Nichols voted in the election. She then filed suit challenging the election and the resultant issuance of bonds. The district court, reasoning that Nichols was not contesting the expenditure of tax funds, but the legality of the Special Election; found that Nichols, having voted, lacked standing; and dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed, stating that because Nichols failed to show an illegal use of municipal taxpayer funds, she cannot establish standing on municipal taxpayer grounds. The court rejected her claims of municipal taxpayer standing on the basis of two expenditures by Rehoboth Beach: the funds required to hold the special election and the funds used to purchase an advertisement in a local newspaper. View "Nichols v. City of Rehoboth Beach" on Justia Law

The property of Riverboat Corporation, an ad valorem taxpayer, was subject to assessment by the Harrison County Board of Supervisors (“the Board”) because Riverboat owned certain personal and real property in Harrison County. The Mississippi Supreme Court was asked "to abandon the common law of this state, pronouncements of this Court, and customs and practices of trial courts across this state, all dating back to the nineteenth century, under the guise that today’s issue has not yet been squarely before" it and to "overrule a learned trial judge who, [. . .] determined a jury trial should be had in an appeal of a county’s ad valorem tax assessment." When Riverboat appealed its tax assessment, the Board requested a jury trial. Riverboat then moved for a bench trial, averring that there was no right to a jury trial in tax appeals. The trial court denied Riverboat's motion. The Supreme Court declined to rule against Mississippi precedent, and affirmed the trial court's denial of Riverboat's motion. View "Riverboat Corporation of Mississippi v. Harrison County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

Historically, sovereigns were not subject to statutes of limitations without their explicit consent. Washington State consented to some statutes of limitations but not to others. The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review in this case was whether Washington consented to a statute of limitations that would bar this antitrust suit filed by the Washington State attorney general on behalf of the State against more than 20 foreign electronics manufacturing companies. The State alleged that between at least March 1, 1995, through at least November 25, 2007, the defendants violated RCW 19.86.030, which prohibited any "contract, combination ... or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce," by agreeing to raise prices and agreeing on production levels in the market for CRTs (cathode ray tubes) used in televisions and computer monitors before the advent of LCD (liquid crystal display) panels and plasma display technologies. Due to this unlawful conspiracy, the State alleges, Washington consumers and the State of Washington itself paid supracompetitive prices for CRT products. Ten of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the claims were time barred because Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) must be brought within four years. The State responded that RCW 19.86.120's statute of limitations did not apply to its claims under RCW 19.86.080. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the State's action for injunctive relief and restitution was exempt from the statute of limitations in RCW 19.86.120 and from the general statutes of limitations in chapter 4.16 RCW. View "Washington v. LG Elecs., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff petitioned the superior court for a writ directing the then-serving members of the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to cease publishing his name on the FTB's list of the state's "Top 500" income tax debtors. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer. Because plaintiff did not seek leave to amend his petition, the trial court dismissed the action with prejudice. The trial court also found the action to be “frivolous and groundless,” and sanctioned petitioner in the amount of $5,000. The court held that the petition was barred by the doctrine of res judicata where plaintiff previously sought redress in federal court for having his name placed on the List; because that issue is determinative, the court need not and did not reach the issue of whether plaintiff's petition stated a claim for violation of his privacy rights; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning petitioner. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd." on Justia Law

The owner commenced tax certiorari proceedings against the City of Rye, challenging assessments for tax years 2002-2010. for Lot 9 and Lot 10. Lot 10 is within the Rye City School District. Lot 9, which the owner believed to be within that district, actually lies within Rye Neck Union School District. Under RPTL 708, within 10 days of service of the notice and petition on a municipality in a tax certiorari proceeding, a petitioner must mail a copy of those documents to the superintendent of schools of any district within which the assessed property is located. The owner did not comply with that requirements before reaching an agreement with the City. Before that tentative settlement was finalized, the owner recognized its error, notified the Rye District, mailed the petition and notice, and sought the Rye District's consent to settle. The District instead intervened. The court dismissed the petitions with prejudice for failure to comply with RPTL 708. The Appellate Division clarified that dismissal pertained to Lot 9, noting that the action may not be recommenced under CPLR 205(a). The Court of Appeals affirmed. A petitioner who ignores the RPTL 708 mailing requirements and denies a school district the opportunity to economically address a tax certiorari proceeding is not permitted to recommence a proceeding dismissed based upon such noncompliance; to do so would undermine the goals that prompted amendments to RPTL 708. View "Westchester Joint Water Works v Assessor of City of Rye" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged an administrative summons issued by the IRS after it issued an approximately $25 million penalty against petitioner and his company. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied petitioner's request for jurisdictional discovery. The court agreed with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity to allow suits to quash summonses that are “issued in aid of the collection of . . . an assessment,” and that the challenged summons was issued in aid of collection. Moreover, the IRS had authority to issue the summons, as there was not an outstanding criminal referral at the time the summons was issued. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery because petitioner did not meet his burden of showing that the requested discovery is likely to produce the facts needed to establish jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Haber v. United States" on Justia Law

The IRS conducted a criminal investigation into businesses owned by Rogers and his associates and subsequently seized millions of dollars. Forfeiture actions settled by an agreement executed in August, 2012. Rogers released his right to bring future claims “related to and/or in connection with or arising out of” the forfeiture actions. In November 2012, Rogers requested records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552. The IRS denied the request. In 2013, Rogers filed suit. In November 2014, the IRS moved for summary judgment, arguing that the release affirmatively waived Rogers’ right to bring his FOIA action. Rogers argued that the IRS forfeited its right to rely on the release by not pleading it as an affirmative defense; the IRS should be estopped from asserting the affirmative defense; and the release did not apply because the FOIA claim was not related to the forfeiture actions. The court granted the IRS summary judgment, finding the release’s language broad enough to encompass Rogers’ FOIA action. The Sixth Circuit affirmed While the IRS could have been more diligent in raising its defense, the court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the IRS to raise it in a summary judgment motion. View "Rogers v. Internal Revenue Serv." on Justia Law

After Diagnostics obtained a judgment against plaintiff, plaintiff filed a Claim of Exemption seeking a judicial declaration that seven of his Fidelity Investments accounts were exempt from levy. The court held that the money that a person sets aside for the “qualified higher education expenses” of his children under Internal Revenue Code section 529 (so-called “section 529 savings accounts”) are not exempt from the collection efforts under the California Enforcement of Judgments Law, Code of Civil Procedure section 680.010 et seq., of a creditor who has a valid judgment against that person. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's ruling to the contrary and reversed the trial court's finding that plaintiff's retirement accounts are fully exempt from collection because the trial court did not apply the proper legal standard in evaluating the exemption for private retirement accounts. View "O'Brien v. AMBS Diagnostics" on Justia Law

Taxpayer Leslie Scott appealed a tax court judgment that dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In 2012, the Department of Revenue issued notices of deficiency assessments against taxpayer relating to his personal income taxes for the tax years 2007 and 2008. Taxpayer appealed, and the Magistrate Division of the Tax Court determined that taxpayer had substantiated some claimed deductions that the department had disputed, but also that he had additional unreported income. Following the proceedings in the Magistrate Division, the department assessed additional income taxes for 2007 and 2008, and issued notices of liability balances to that effect. Taxpayer appealed to the Regular Division. The Tax Court received taxpayer’s complaint, a declaration of mailing, a motion for a stay of the requirement to pay the taxes owed, and the filing fee for the complaint. The Tax Court did not, however, receive an affidavit, with the complaint, alleging that payment of the disputed amounts pending appeal would cause him undue hardship. The department moved to dismiss taxpayer’s complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter because taxpayer had not complied with the requirements of ORS 305.419 and TCR 18 C. Taxpayer opposed the department’s motion and submitted a declaration by his counsel that, according to counsel’s recollection, he had printed and assembled a packet for mailing to the Tax Court that included a complaint, a declaration of mailing, a motion for a stay, a hardship declaration, and a filing fee. Ultimately, the Tax Court granted the department’s motion. The Supreme Court reversed. "We hesitate to deem as jurisdictional a statutory requirement that is designed to allow someone without funds access to the courts to pursue their statutory appeal rights. […] what makes the taxpayer’s complaint subject to dismissal is the failure to establish undue hardship, not the failure to file an affidavit with the complaint." The Supreme Court concluded the Tax Court erred in dismissing taxpayer’s appeal on that ground. View "Scott v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles challenging the validity of a certain tax and seeking a refund of taxes. In 2007, during discovery proceedings in the underlying litigation, the trial court determined that certain documents the City possessed were privileged under either the the attorney-client privilege or the privilege for attorney work product. In 2013, Plaintiff filed a request under the California Public Records Act seeking to obtain copies of documents relating to the tax at issue. The City’s administrative office, in response, inadvertently provided Plaintiff with some of the privileged documents. The City filed a motion for an order compelling the return of the privileged material. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the production of the documents under the Public Records Act had waived any privilege. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Cal. Gov’t Code 6254.5, which generally provides that “disclosure” of a public record waives any privilege, applies to an intentional, not an inadvertent, disclosure. Remanded. View "Ardon v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law