Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Aleksia Lindsay filed an amended class action complaint against Patenaude & Felix, APC, and Transworld Systems Inc., alleging unfair debt collection practices. Lindsay had defaulted on $60,000 in student loans, and after receiving incomplete and inaccurate information from Transworld, Patenaude initiated two debt collection lawsuits against her. Lindsay later discovered that both entities had a history of unethical collection practices, leading to actions by various regulatory bodies. After the lawsuits against her were dismissed, Lindsay received another demand for payment and subsequently filed the class action complaint.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County struck Lindsay's complaint, relying on the anti-SLAPP law, and ruled that the public interest exception did not apply. Lindsay argued that the trial court erred in this decision. The trial court concluded that although the three conditions of the public interest exception were met, the action was not brought solely in the public interest because Lindsay sought damages.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court held that the action was brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public, as the relief sought by Lindsay was identical to that sought for the plaintiff class. The court also found that seeking damages did not preclude the application of the public interest exception. The court concluded that the action met all three conditions of the public interest exception: it did not seek greater or different relief, it would enforce an important right affecting the public interest and confer a significant benefit, and private enforcement was necessary and placed a disproportionate financial burden on Lindsay.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, exempting Lindsay's action from the anti-SLAPP law and entitling her to costs on appeal. View "Lindsay v. Patenaude & Felix" on Justia Law

JHVS Group, LLC and its members, Jasanjot Singh and Harshana Kaur, purchased a 66.4-acre pistachio orchard from Shawn Slate and Dina Slate for approximately $2.6 million. The Slates agreed to carry a loan for $1,889,600, and JHVS made a $700,000 down payment. The agreement included provisions for interest payments and additional payments coinciding with expected crop payments. JHVS alleged that the Slates and their brokers, Randy Hayer and SVN Executive Commercial Advisors, misrepresented material facts about the property, including water rights and the value of the 2022 crop. JHVS claimed the actual value of the crop was significantly lower than represented, and they fell behind on payments, leading the Slates to record a notice of default.JHVS filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Madera County, raising seven causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, rescission based on fraud or mutual mistake, and injunctive relief to stop the foreclosure process. JHVS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale, arguing that the Slates and Hayer had lied about water restrictions and misrepresented the crop's value. The trial court granted the preliminary injunction after the defendants did not appear or file a response.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court lacked fundamental jurisdiction over the Slates because they were never served with the summons and complaint. The appellate court determined that the trial court's order was void as to the Slates due to the lack of proper service and reversed the preliminary injunction order with respect to the Slates. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "JHVS Group, LLC v. Slate" on Justia Law

Erin Hughes, the plaintiff, obtained two homeowner’s insurance policies for her property in Malibu. One policy, through the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan), covered fire loss, while the other, issued by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), did not. After a fire caused significant damage to her property, Hughes filed a lawsuit against Farmers, alleging it was vicariously liable for the negligence of its agent, Maritza Hartnett, who assisted her in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy, resulting in underinsurance for fire loss.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Farmers’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that Hartnett was not acting within the scope of her agency with Farmers when she assisted Hughes in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy. The court also denied Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Hartnett was not acting as Farmers’ actual or ostensible agent when she helped Hughes obtain the FAIR Plan policy. The court found that Hartnett’s agent appointment agreement with Farmers did not include authority to transact insurance business on behalf of Farmers for policies issued by unrelated carriers like FAIR Plan. Additionally, the court determined that Hughes failed to present evidence showing that Farmers’ conduct could have led her to reasonably believe Hartnett was acting as its agent in procuring the FAIR Plan policy. The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, citing her failure to provide an excuse for the delay in filing the motion and the potential prejudice to Farmers. View "Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Junhai Bai and Xiaofei Li, filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District and teacher Stephanie Yip, alleging that their minor daughter, L.B., was physically abused by Yip. The complaint detailed incidents of abuse, including insufficient food and water, physical assault, and resulting injuries such as a concussion and chest contusion. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages for mental harm, impairment of working ability, future illness risk compensation, and family care.The San Francisco City & County Superior Court sustained the defendants' unopposed demurrer and granted their unopposed motion to strike portions of the complaint, allowing leave to amend but without specifying a deadline. Plaintiffs filed a revised version of their complaint several weeks after the time to amend had expired. The trial court did not consider this filing as an amended complaint. Defendants then moved to dismiss the action under section 581, subdivisions (f)(2) and (f)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the court granted.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that under the decision in Gitmed v. General Motors Corp., the filing of an amended complaint, even if untimely, precludes dismissal under section 581, subdivision (f)(2), unless and until the amended complaint is stricken. The court found that the plaintiffs' revised pleading should have been treated as an amended complaint, which should have precluded the dismissal of the action. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and the order granting the motion to dismiss, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Bai v. Yip" on Justia Law

Ashley Howell, a temporary pre-licensed psychiatric technician, was employed by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) from January 2, 2020, to January 24, 2020. Howell was terminated after DSH discovered she was on medical leave from her previous job due to a 2017 sexual assault, which she did not disclose during her pre-employment health screening. Howell filed a lawsuit against DSH, claiming mental and physical disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).The Napa County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of DSH on Howell’s claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process. Howell dismissed her claim for failure to prevent discrimination. The jury found in favor of Howell on her mental disability discrimination claim, awarding her $36,751.25 in lost earnings and health insurance benefits but nothing for pain and suffering. The court denied Howell’s motion for a new trial on non-economic damages and granted DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, striking the award for lost health insurance benefits. Howell was awarded $135,102 in attorney fees and costs but did not receive a ruling on her request for prejudgment interest.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny Howell’s motion for a new trial and to grant DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court found that Howell did not provide evidence of out-of-pocket expenses for lost health insurance benefits. The court also upheld the trial court’s award of $135,102 in attorney fees and costs, finding Howell’s request for $1.75 million to be unreasonable. However, the appellate court remanded the case for the trial court to address Howell’s request for prejudgment interest. View "Howell v. State Dept. of State Hospitals" on Justia Law

Phhhoto Inc. filed a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc., alleging that Meta engaged in anticompetitive practices that harmed Phhhoto's business. Phhhoto claimed that Meta's introduction of an algorithmic feed on Instagram in March 2016 suppressed Phhhoto's content, leading to a significant decline in user engagement and new registrations. Phhhoto argued that Meta's actions, including withdrawing access to Instagram's Find Friends API, terminating a joint project, and releasing a competing app called Boomerang, were part of a scheme to monopolize the market and eliminate Phhhoto as a competitor.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Phhhoto's claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ruling that it was time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations under the Sherman Act. The court found that Phhhoto's claim accrued outside the limitations period and that equitable tolling did not apply because Phhhoto failed to demonstrate fraudulent concealment by Meta.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case de novo and concluded that Phhhoto sufficiently alleged that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled due to Meta's fraudulent concealment. The court found that Meta's public statements about the algorithmic feed were misleading and constituted affirmative acts of concealment. The court also determined that Phhhoto did not have actual or inquiry notice of its antitrust claim until October 25, 2017, when it discovered evidence suggesting Meta's anticompetitive behavior. The court held that Phhhoto's continued ignorance of the claim was not due to a lack of diligence.The Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Phhhoto's antitrust claim to proceed. View "Phhhoto Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

Matt Roane was involved in litigation with the Archuleta County Board of Commissioners when he submitted a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request to Archuleta County Clerk and Recorder, Kristy Archuleta, seeking a recording of a recent Board meeting. Archuleta denied the request, claiming it circumvented the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. Roane had not sought any records through discovery in his civil action against the Board. Roane then sued Archuleta, alleging a violation of CORA.The district court granted Roane's motion to show cause, rejecting Archuleta's argument that the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure prohibited Roane from obtaining evidence outside of discovery procedures. The court ordered Archuleta to produce the recording. Archuleta appealed, arguing that the district court allowed Roane to bypass discovery rules. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, holding that CORA allows litigants to inspect public records even if they are relevant to pending litigation.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that a litigant may obtain records under CORA even if those records are relevant to pending litigation and the litigant has not made document requests under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized that CORA and the Rules of Civil Procedure are distinct legal regimes and that CORA does not limit inspection rights simply because the requester is involved in litigation with the public entity. The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Archuleta v. Roane" on Justia Law

An inmate at the Trumbull Correctional Institution (TCI) submitted 17 public-records requests to various TCI departments and employees in August 2023. The requests included documents such as the current bank statement for TCI’s industrial and entertainment fund, the recreation music-room schedule, TCI’s list of approved vendors, and body-camera footage from a specific corrections officer. The inmate claimed that all his requests were initially denied and sought a writ of mandamus to compel the production of the records, as well as statutory damages and reimbursement for postage and photocopying.The case was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The court found that many of the inmate’s requests had been rendered moot because the requested documents were provided to him after he filed his complaint. The court also determined that the inmate did not meet his burden of proof for some requests, as he failed to show that he properly requested the records from the appropriate public office or person responsible for public records. Additionally, the court found that the delay in responding to the inmate’s requests was not unreasonable given the number of requests.The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the inmate’s request for a writ of mandamus, statutory damages, and reimbursement for expenses. The court also denied the inmate’s motion to compel the clerk to accept his untimely response and the respondents’ motion for sanctions. The court concluded that there was no evidence that the inmate acted falsely or fraudulently in bringing the action. View "State ex rel. Berry v. Booth" on Justia Law

A group of city and county governments, Indian tribes, and other entities filed actions against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies, alleging they misled medical professionals and the public, leading to widespread addiction. Two Ohio counties, Trumbull and Lake, claimed that national pharmaceutical chains, including Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart, contributed to the opioid epidemic by filling prescriptions without proper controls. They filed a common-law absolute public-nuisance claim seeking equitable relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the pharmacies' motion to dismiss, which argued that the Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA) abrogated the public-nuisance claims. The court based its decision on a prior ruling in a related case, concluding that the OPLA did not abrogate public-nuisance claims seeking non-compensatory damages. After a jury verdict in favor of the counties, the pharmacies' motion for judgment as a matter of law was also denied. The pharmacies appealed, and the Sixth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of Ohio regarding the OPLA's scope.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the OPLA abrogates all common-law public-nuisance claims arising from the sale of a product, including those seeking equitable relief. The court determined that the statutory definition of "product liability claim" includes public-nuisance claims related to the design, manufacture, supply, marketing, distribution, promotion, advertising, labeling, or sale of a product. The court rejected the argument that the OPLA only abrogates claims seeking compensatory damages or involving defective products. The court concluded that the counties' claims, based on the pharmacies' dispensing of opioids, fall within the scope of the OPLA and are therefore abrogated. View "In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation" on Justia Law

An inmate at the Pickaway Correctional Institution, Trevor J. Teagarden, requested various public records from prison staff between June and August 2023. These requests included medical protocols, recreation schedules, policy indexes, and a sign-in sheet for LexisNexis computer terminals. The prison staff responded by directing him to where some of the requested documents were posted or available for review in the library, and denied access to the sign-in sheet, stating it was library property.Teagarden filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in December 2023, seeking to compel the prison staff to provide the requested records, along with statutory damages and court costs. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case after denying the respondents' motion to dismiss and ordering them to file an answer.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Teagarden's requests for the recreation schedules and medical protocols were either not directed to the proper records custodian or were too vague. However, the court found that the sign-in sheet for the LexisNexis computer terminals was a public record maintained by the library staff, and their refusal to provide it violated the Public Records Act. Consequently, the court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the prison staff to provide Teagarden with the sign-in sheet for August 24 and 25, 2023.The court awarded Teagarden $1,000 in statutory damages for the failure to provide the sign-in sheet but denied his request for court costs due to his affidavit of indigency. The court denied the writ for the other records requested, as the responses from the prison staff were deemed appropriate under the circumstances. View "State ex rel. Teagarden v. Igwe" on Justia Law