Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A woman who uses a wheelchair and her husband sued Uber Technologies, Inc. and others after an incident in which an Uber driver failed to provide her with a seatbelt while transporting her in a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. The plaintiffs alleged negligence and other claims. Uber responded by filing a petition to compel arbitration, arguing that the plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate their claims when they enrolled in Uber’s service. The trial court granted Uber’s petition, stayed the litigation, and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration.After this order, the plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, contending that the trial court’s order to compel arbitration was an immediately appealable collateral order under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313. The Superior Court, sitting en banc, agreed that the arbitration order qualified as a collateral order and reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate and remanding for further proceedings. There was a dissent in the Superior Court, which argued that the order was not a collateral order and that any issues could be addressed after arbitration under the applicable statutes.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether an order compelling arbitration and staying proceedings is an immediately appealable collateral order. The court held that such an order does not meet the requirements for a collateral order because the issue can be reviewed after the entry of final judgment, and thus does not result in irreparable loss if review is postponed. The court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to quash the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did not address the validity of the arbitration agreement or the merits of compelling arbitration. View "Chilutti v. Uber" on Justia Law

An investor brought a derivative action against the managers of a limited liability company, alleging unauthorized transactions conducted under their management. After a bench trial, the investor lost both at trial and on appeal. The investor’s claims were rejected, and the court awarded costs to the prevailing manager. Although both managers were originally involved in the case, only one remained relevant for the cost award proceedings at this stage.Following the trial and appellate losses, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County awarded costs to the prevailing manager under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.891, which together provide that a prevailing party is generally entitled to recover costs. The plaintiff had previously defeated the manager’s motion for a security bond under Corporations Code section 17709.02, a statute intended to deter frivolous derivative suits. The plaintiff argued that this earlier success on the bond motion should bar any subsequent award of costs, claiming that section 17709.02 overrides the ordinary cost rules.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed this argument. The appellate court held that Corporations Code section 17709.02 does not preclude an award of ordinary litigation costs to a prevailing defendant in a derivative action where the bond motion was denied. The court found no statutory language supporting the plaintiff’s position and noted that case law, including Brusso v. Running Springs Country Club, Inc., confirms that the bond statute is special-purpose and does not displace general cost-recovery rules. The appellate court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, awarding costs to the prevailing defendant. The court also found that the plaintiff had forfeited several additional arguments by failing to support them with adequate briefing or legal authority. View "Barrios v. Chraghchian" on Justia Law

Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC initiated bankruptcy proceedings in 2014 and brought an adversary action against Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. to recover $50,000 in unpaid invoices. Vista-Pro attempted to serve Coney Island by mail but allegedly did not comply with the required service rules. Coney Island did not respond, leading the Bankruptcy Court to enter a default judgment in 2015. Over the next six years, the bankruptcy trustee sought to enforce the judgment, including notifying Coney Island’s CEO of the judgment in 2016. In 2021, a marshal seized funds from Coney Island’s bank account to satisfy the judgment, prompting Coney Island to seek relief from the judgment, alleging it was void due to improper service.The United States Bankruptcy Court denied Coney Island’s motion to vacate the judgment, finding that Coney Island failed to meet the requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) that such motions be brought within a “reasonable time.” The United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both affirmed this decision, agreeing that the reasonable-time limit applied to motions alleging a void judgment.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case to resolve a split among lower courts over whether the reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(c)(1) applies to motions under Rule 60(b)(4) claiming a judgment is void. The Court held that the plain language and structure of Rule 60 make the reasonable-time requirement applicable to all Rule 60(b) motions, including those asserting voidness. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit, concluding that motions for relief from allegedly void judgments must be made within a reasonable time. View "Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton" on Justia Law

Harold Berk, while traveling in Delaware, suffered a fractured ankle and sought treatment at Beebe Medical Center, where Dr. Wilson Choy recommended a protective boot. Berk alleged that hospital staff improperly fitted the boot, worsening his injury, and that Dr. Choy failed to order an immediate follow-up X-ray, resulting in delayed treatment and the need for surgery. Berk, a citizen of another state, filed a medical malpractice suit in federal court against both the hospital and Dr. Choy under Delaware law.Delaware law requires that a medical malpractice complaint be accompanied by an affidavit of merit from a medical professional. Berk requested an extension to file this affidavit, which was granted, but ultimately failed to secure the required affidavit and instead filed his medical records under seal. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed Berk’s suit for failing to comply with Delaware’s affidavit of merit statute. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal, finding the state law substantive and applicable in federal court because, in its view, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not address the affidavit requirement.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Delaware’s affidavit of merit requirement does not apply in federal court. The Court reasoned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which governs the information a plaintiff must provide at the outset of a lawsuit, sets the standard for pleadings and does not require supporting evidence such as an affidavit. Because Rule 8 is a valid procedural rule under the Rules Enabling Act and regulates the manner and means by which claims are presented, it displaces the contrary Delaware law. The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Berk v. Choy" on Justia Law

Daevieon Towns purchased a new Hyundai Elantra in 2016, and over the next 19 months, the car required multiple repairs for alleged electrical and engine defects. In March 2018, either Towns or his wife, Lashona Johnson, requested that Hyundai buy back the defective vehicle. Before Hyundai acted, the car was involved in a collision, declared a total loss, and Johnson’s insurance paid her $14,710.91.Towns initially sued Hyundai Motor America in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. As trial approached, Towns amended his complaint to add Johnson as a plaintiff, arguing she was the primary driver and responsible for the vehicle. The trial court allowed the amendment, finding Johnson was not a buyer but permitted her to proceed based on its interpretation of Patel v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. At trial, the jury found for Towns and Johnson, awarding damages and civil penalties. However, the court reduced the damages by the insurance payout and adjusted the prejudgment interest accordingly. Both parties challenged the judgment and costs in post-trial motions.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that only a buyer has standing under the Act, so Johnson could not be a plaintiff. The court also held that third-party insurance payments do not reduce statutory damages under the Act, following the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC. Furthermore, prejudgment interest is available under Civil Code section 3288 because Hyundai’s statutory obligations do not arise from contract. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to enter a modified judgment and reconsider costs. View "Towns v. Hyundai Motor America" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former employee of California State University, Chico, filed suit against her prior employer and other parties alleging employment discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination. She initiated the lawsuit on April 19, 2019. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, as extended by Judicial Council emergency rule 10 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she was required to bring her case to trial by October 19, 2024. However, at a case management conference in March 2024, the trial court scheduled the trial for February 3, 2025, a date beyond the statutory deadline.After the trial date was set, the defendants moved to dismiss the case for failure to bring it to trial within the statutory period. They argued that no exception to the deadline applied, specifically contesting the existence of any oral agreement to extend the deadline. The plaintiff opposed dismissal, asserting that both parties had verbally agreed in open court to the February 2025 trial date, and that this agreement was recorded in the minute order. However, the minute order only documented the setting of the trial and related conferences, and contained no indication of any oral stipulation or agreement. The Superior Court of Butte County found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a valid oral agreement to extend the deadline under section 583.330, subdivision (b), and granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s decision under the abuse of discretion standard, and interpreted the statute de novo. The appellate court held that an oral agreement to extend the statutory trial deadline under section 583.330, subdivision (b), must be reflected in the court’s minutes or a transcript. Because the record did not include any such evidence, the exception did not apply. The court affirmed the judgment of dismissal and awarded costs to the defendants. View "Randolph v. Trustees of the Cal. State University" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization based in Virginia, which advocates for election integrity, requested access to South Carolina’s statewide voter registration list from the state’s Election Commission. The request was made under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which generally requires states to make certain records about voter list maintenance available for public inspection and copying. South Carolina’s Election Commission denied the request, citing a state law that restricts disclosure of the voter list to individuals registered to vote within the state. The nonprofit responded by notifying the Election Commission that this refusal violated the NVRA and, after receiving a reiteration of the Commission’s position, filed a federal lawsuit seeking disclosure of the list.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina reviewed the case. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the nonprofit, concluding that the NVRA requires disclosure of the voter list and preempts the conflicting state law. The district court ordered the Election Commission to disclose the list. The Election Commission then moved for reconsideration, but the district court denied this motion. The Election Commission appealed both the grant of summary judgment and the denial of reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. On appeal, the Election Commission argued for the first time that the nonprofit lacked Article III standing to sue under the NVRA. The Fourth Circuit held that standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue and that the record lacked sufficient factual findings on standing, as the issue was not previously addressed in the district court. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the nonprofit has standing to bring the suit. The merits of the case were not addressed on appeal. View "Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Wooten" on Justia Law

Following Hurricane Laura, a Texas-based company, Top Notch Movers, provided moving services in Alabama and Louisiana to Shamrock Enterprises, an Alabama-based LLC. Top Notch sent a demand letter to Shamrock seeking payment for over $170,000 in unpaid invoices. Subsequently, Top Notch filed suit in Texas for nonpayment, listing Shamrock’s principal office as a Foley, Alabama address and seeking substituted service via the Texas Secretary of State under section 5.251(1)(A) of the Texas Business Organizations Code. The Secretary of State attempted to forward process to the Foley address, but the mailing was returned as undeliverable. Shamrock did not appear, and Top Notch obtained a default judgment, which was also mailed to the same address and returned.Shamrock later initiated a restricted appeal, arguing that service of process was improper. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the default judgment, finding that Shamrock was amenable to substituted service under the cited statute and that the Secretary of State’s Whitney certificate constituted irrebuttable proof of proper service.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and determined that even if Shamrock was subject to substituted service under section 5.251(1)(A), the record did not show that process was forwarded to the statutorily required address—Shamrock’s “most recent address . . . on file with the secretary of state.” The court clarified that a Whitney certificate only proves that process was sent to the address provided, not that the statutory requirements were met, and strict compliance is necessary for a valid default judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacated the default judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "SHAMROCK ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TOP NOTCH MOVERS, LLC" on Justia Law

A juvenile born in 2007 was adjudicated at age 14 for habitual truancy and placed on indefinite probation. Over the next several years, he was adjudicated in four separate delinquency cases—primarily theft and assault-related—and placed on indefinite probation in each case. While still on probation in all five cases, the State filed a felony criminal complaint against him for attempted robbery. In response, the State moved in all juvenile cases for a finding that he was not amenable to rehabilitative services under the Nebraska Juvenile Code, requesting that the court terminate jurisdiction “unsuccessfully.”The Separate Juvenile Court of Sarpy County held a consolidated hearing, receiving evidence regarding the juvenile’s history, participation in probation and services, and recent criminal charges. The court found him nonamenable to rehabilitative services and ordered termination of both probation and the court’s jurisdiction, specifying that the record would not be sealed. The juvenile appealed these orders. The Nebraska Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals, and the Nebraska Supreme Court moved them to its docket to address statutory interpretation and procedural issues regarding Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2,106.03.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a finding of nonamenability under § 43-2,106.03 must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, with the State bearing the burden when it moves for such a finding. The Court affirmed the juvenile court’s determination of nonamenability, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it held there is no statutory authority for a juvenile court to terminate probation or jurisdiction based solely on a finding of nonamenability under § 43-2,106.03. The Supreme Court affirmed the nonamenability finding, but vacated the orders terminating probation and jurisdiction, remanding the cases for further proceedings. View "In re Interest of Johnny H." on Justia Law

LJM Partners, Ltd. and Two Roads Shared Trust, both involved in options trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, experienced catastrophic losses on February 5 and 6, 2018, when volatility in the S&P 500 surged unexpectedly; LJM lost approximately 86.5% of its managed assets and the Preservation Fund (managed by Two Roads) lost around 80%. The plaintiffs alleged that eight defendant firms, acting as market makers, manipulated the VIX index by submitting inflated bid-ask quotes for certain SPX Options, which artificially raised volatility and resulted in inflated prices on the plaintiffs' trades, causing over one billion dollars in combined losses.After initially filing complaints against unnamed "John Doe" defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the plaintiffs pursued extensive discovery to identify the responsible parties. The cases were swept into a multidistrict litigation proceeding (VIX MDL), which delayed discovery. Eventually, after several rounds of amended complaints, the plaintiffs identified and named eight defendant firms. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district court found that LJM lacked Article III standing because it failed to allege an injury in fact, as the losses belonged to its clients, not LJM itself. For Two Roads, the district court held that its claims were time-barred under the Commodity Exchange Act’s two-year statute of limitations, and equitable tolling was denied due to lack of diligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that LJM’s complaint failed to establish Article III standing, as it did not allege that LJM itself—not just its clients—suffered actual losses. The court further held that Two Roads’s complaint was untimely and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing equitable tolling. Both dismissals were affirmed. View "LJM Partners, Ltd. v. Barclays Capital, Inc." on Justia Law