Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Appellants CKHS, Inc. and The Foundation for Delaware County sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Appellees Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. and Prospect Crozer, LLC from converting Delaware County Memorial Hospital from an emergency and acute care facility to a behavioral health hospital. The asset purchase agreement (APA) between the parties included clauses requiring Prospect to maintain key service lines, including emergency medicine, for five years and to consult with a local advisory board before making significant changes after that period. Additionally, the APA stipulated that any breach would cause irreparable damage.The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Appellants demonstrated the necessary prerequisites, including irreparable harm. The court relied on the APA's irreparable harm clause and expert testimony from Melissa Lyon, who testified that removing healthcare access points from a community almost always negatively impacts health outcomes, particularly for socioeconomically disadvantaged and elderly populations.The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's order, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by finding irreparable harm based on speculative and hypothetical evidence. The Commonwealth Court held that the APA's irreparable harm clause alone was insufficient and required concrete evidence of harm, which it found lacking in Lyon's testimony.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and determined that the Commonwealth Court misapplied the appellate standard of review, which requires a highly deferential approach to the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the trial court had apparently reasonable grounds to issue the preliminary injunction based on Lyon's testimony and the APA's irreparable harm clause. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the remaining factors for preliminary injunctive relief. View "CKHS, Inc. v. Prospect Med Hldgs, Inc." on Justia Law

Five elderly African elephants, Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo, reside at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (NRP) filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of the elephants, seeking their transfer to a suitable elephant sanctuary. NRP argued that the elephants were unlawfully confined and had a right to bodily liberty due to their cognitive and social complexities. The petition included affidavits from animal biologists supporting the elephants' autonomy and complex needs.The El Paso County District Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Colorado's habeas corpus statute only applies to persons, not nonhuman animals. The court accepted NRP's allegations as true but concluded that the elephants lacked standing to seek habeas relief. The court also determined that NRP did not have proper next friend status to bring the petition on the elephants' behalf. Additionally, the court found that NRP failed to make a prima facie case that the elephants were unlawfully confined, as the zoo was operating within legal standards.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the habeas corpus statute in Colorado applies only to persons, defined as human beings, and does not extend to nonhuman animals. The court rejected NRP's argument to rely on common law for broader habeas corpus rights, emphasizing that the statute explicitly limits relief to persons. The court also noted that recognizing nonhuman animals as persons would have significant legal and societal implications. Consequently, the elephants did not have standing to bring a habeas corpus claim, and the district court's dismissal was upheld. View "Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Soc'y" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a defamation lawsuit against the defendant after she called him a "white supremacist" on a social media page. The defendant made this statement during a heated political discussion on a town's Facebook page, which was in response to a joint statement by local officials regarding the killing of George Floyd. The plaintiff argued that the term "white supremacist" constituted defamation per se.The trial court, the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, granted the defendant's special motion to dismiss under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a). The court determined that the defendant's statements were nonactionable opinions rather than actionable defamation per se. The court also awarded the defendant attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court incorrectly concluded that he had failed to show probable cause that he would prevail on the merits of his defamation claim and that the court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the term "white supremacist," without more, is a nonactionable opinion rather than actionable defamation per se. The court reasoned that the term lacks a precise meaning, cannot be objectively verified, and does not necessarily imply that the declarant knew existing, undisclosed defamatory facts. The context in which the defendant made the statement—a heated political debate on social media—further supported the conclusion that the statement was an opinion. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's award of attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant. View "Murphy v. Rosen" on Justia Law

Kevin Johnson, an inmate in Indiana, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he received inadequate dental and mental health care while incarcerated. The case was complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and Johnson's frequent transfers between prisons in Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia, which disrupted his mail service. Johnson claimed he never received the defendants' summary judgment motions due to these mail issues.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana initially denied the defendants' summary judgment motions without prejudice, recognizing potential mail delivery problems. The court allowed the defendants to refile their motions and instructed them to notify the court if Johnson did not receive the filings. Despite these measures, Johnson did not respond to the refiled motions within the given 28-day period. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case. Johnson later filed a motion to vacate the judgment, asserting he never received the refiled motions, but the district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court acknowledged the procedural complexities but focused on whether Johnson had constructive notice of the summary judgment motions. The court concluded that Johnson had constructive notice because he received the district court's order resetting the briefing schedule and instructing him on how to proceed. The court found no substantive or procedural error in the district court's decision and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Johnson v Purdue" on Justia Law

The case involves James B. Church & Associates, P.C. (the Church Firm), which served as legal counsel for Dennis Shogren, the personal representative of the estate of Loren R. Kirk, in a probate action. The estate beneficiaries, including Barbara Sagehorn and the Carter Beneficiaries, alleged that the Church Firm negligently failed to file a protective claim for a refund with the IRS or advise Shogren to do so. This failure purportedly resulted in the estate missing out on a potential $5,000,000 tax refund.The Superior Court of San Bernardino denied the Church Firm's special motion to strike the causes of action under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court found that the firm did not demonstrate that the causes of action arose from its constitutionally protected free speech or petitioning activities. The Church Firm appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court conducted an independent review and agreed with the lower court's ruling. It determined that the alleged acts forming the basis of the petitioners' causes of action—specifically, the Church Firm's failure to file a protective claim for a refund and failure to advise Shogren to file such a claim—were not protected activities under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court emphasized that the anti-SLAPP statute protects statements or writings made before or in connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body, not failures to act or speak.Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion, concluding that the Church Firm did not meet its burden of proving that the causes of action arose from protected conduct. View "Callister v. James B. Church & Associates" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Brian L. Sheehy, as trustee, sued Chicago Title Insurance Company over a dispute involving an easement on his property. Plaintiff designated an attorney, who had previously represented the defendant, as an expert witness to testify about the defendant's handling of the claim. The defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude this expert, arguing that the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct prohibited the attorney from testifying adversely to the defendant. The trial court granted the motion to exclude the expert.Plaintiff then filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal, which was summarily denied. Concurrently, plaintiff appealed the trial court's ruling, citing Brand v. 20th Century Insurance Company/21st Century Insurance Company (2004) for the proposition that the order was appealable. The Court of Appeal stayed the preparation of the record, considered dismissing the appeal, and requested briefing from the parties. A hearing was subsequently held.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, dismissed the appeal. The court held that it only has jurisdiction over direct appeals from appealable orders or judgments. The court emphasized that, in ordinary civil cases, appeals are generally only permitted from final judgments to prevent piecemeal disposition and multiple appeals. The court distinguished between orders on motions to disqualify counsel, which are appealable, and orders on motions in limine, which are not. The court disagreed with the precedent set in Brand, concluding that orders on motions in limine are not appealable as they are not final collateral orders or injunctions. The court decided that such orders should be reviewed only by writ petition or by appeal from the final judgment. View "Sheehy v. Chicago Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, train dispatchers for Bombardier Mass Transit Corporation, filed claims for unpaid wages, alleging they were entitled to overtime wages and wage statement penalties for on-call time. Initially, they sought relief through the labor commissioner’s Berman hearing process, which was denied. Subsequently, they requested a de novo hearing in the San Diego Superior Court, where they prevailed, receiving over $140,000 in back wages and penalties. They then moved for attorney fees and costs, which the trial court granted, awarding $200,000.In the Superior Court of San Diego County, the plaintiffs' claims were initially denied by the labor commissioner. Upon seeking a de novo trial, the superior court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them unpaid wages and penalties. The court also granted their motion for attorney fees and costs, amounting to $200,000, rejecting Bombardier’s argument that section 98.2, subdivision (c) was the exclusive statute for awarding attorney fees and costs in such cases.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. Bombardier contended that section 98.2, subdivision (c) should be the sole basis for awarding attorney fees and costs in a de novo trial following a Berman hearing. The appellate court disagreed, affirming the trial court’s decision. The court held that prevailing plaintiffs in superior court actions for unpaid wages are generally entitled to an award of reasonable fees and costs under sections 218.5, 226, and 1194, and nothing in section 98.2 suggests otherwise. The court emphasized that the Berman process is designed to benefit employees and should not restrict their remedies. Thus, the order awarding $200,000 in attorney fees and costs to the plaintiffs was affirmed. View "Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp." on Justia Law

A borrower misrepresented his authority to act on behalf of two corporations he intended to acquire, providing false documents to a lender. Despite having documents contradicting the borrower's claims, the lender proceeded with a $7 million loan, including a confession-of-judgment affidavit naming the corporations as additional borrowers. When the borrower defaulted, the lender sought a confessed judgment against all borrowers, including the corporations, whose true officers were unaware of the transaction until served with notice of the judgment.The Superior Court of Delaware conducted a hearing and entered judgment in favor of the lender, finding that the borrower had apparent authority to bind the corporations. The court focused on the borrower's conduct and representations, concluding that they created the impression of authority sufficient to warrant the entry of a confessed judgment against the corporations.The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the case and found that the Superior Court's formulation of the test for apparent authority was flawed. The Supreme Court emphasized that apparent authority must be based on the principal's manifestations, not solely on the agent's conduct. The evidence did not support a finding that the corporations acted in a way that created a reasonable belief in the lender that the borrower was authorized to bind them. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed and vacated the Superior Court's judgment, concluding that the borrower lacked apparent authority and that the corporations did not effectively waive their due process rights. View "Caribbean Sun Airlines Inc. v. Halevi Enterprises LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, G.P.P., Inc. (GIS) sued Guardian Protection Products, Inc. (Guardian) and RPM Wood Finishes Group, Inc. (RPM) for breach of contract and other claims related to nine warehousing distributor agreements (WDAs). GIS alleged that Guardian wrongfully terminated three WDAs and threatened to terminate the remaining six. GIS sought damages and other relief, while Guardian countersued for declaratory relief and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California conducted two trials. In the first trial, the jury rejected all claims and counterclaims. GIS appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment on certain claims, leading to a second trial. In the second trial, the jury awarded GIS $6 million in damages. GIS then sought attorney’s fees from Guardian, while Guardian and RPM sought fees from GIS.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's award of over $4 million in attorney’s fees to GIS. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court correctly deemed GIS the prevailing party against Guardian, as GIS successfully defended against Guardian’s counterclaims and won significant damages. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in its analysis of RPM’s entitlement to fees. The district court had deemed certain claims voluntarily dismissed, but the Ninth Circuit concluded that GIS did not provide adequate notice of its intent to abandon those claims. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision regarding the abandoned claims and remanded for further determination of fees due to RPM.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s methodology and equitable considerations in deeming GIS the prevailing party against Guardian but reversed and remanded the decision regarding RPM’s entitlement to fees. View "GPP, INC. V. GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC." on Justia Law

Jason Terrell, M.D., provided consulting services and served on the board of directors of Kiromic Biopharma, Inc. between December 2014 and May 2021. During this period, Kiromic awarded Terrell stock options through three separate agreements. The first agreement granted Terrell an option to purchase 500,000 shares at $0.50 per share for consulting services. The second agreement, made when Terrell joined the board, granted him an option to purchase 500,004 shares at $0.17 per share. The third agreement, which included a waiver clause, granted him an option to purchase 500,004 shares at $0.19 per share. After Terrell resigned from the board in September 2019, Kiromic refused to honor the options from the first two agreements, claiming that Terrell waived his rights to those options in the third agreement.The Court of Chancery dismissed Terrell’s complaint seeking specific performance of the first two option grants, finding that the waiver clause in the third agreement unambiguously extinguished Terrell’s rights to the previous option awards. The court held that the language in the waiver clause, which stated that Terrell had no other rights to any other options or securities of the company, was clear and that the carveout for "securities issued" did not include unexercised options.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case and found that the waiver language was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. The court noted that the term "securities" could reasonably include options and that the parties' use of the word "issued" did not exclusively refer to shares. Therefore, the court concluded that the waiver clause was ambiguous and that the case should not have been dismissed at the pleadings stage. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Terrell v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc." on Justia Law