Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Owners of timeshare estates in a resort sued the County of Riverside, challenging the legality of the annual fee charged for separate property tax assessments. The owners argued that the fee exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the assessment, constituting a tax requiring voter approval, which had not been obtained.The Superior Court of Riverside County rejected the owners' argument and entered judgment for the County. The court ruled that the fee did not exceed the reasonable cost of the assessment and was not a tax requiring voter approval. The court also considered additional costs not included in the original fee calculation, such as costs related to assessment appeals and a new computer system.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court found that the County's methodology for setting the fee was flawed. The County had used the assessor's entire budget for a previous fiscal year to calculate the fee, which included costs unrelated to the separate timeshare assessments. The court also noted that the County had not provided evidence of the actual cost of the separate assessments and had improperly included costs for services provided to all property owners.The Court of Appeal concluded that the County did not meet its burden to prove that the fee was not a tax. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate refund amount and to address the owners' requests for declaratory, injunctive, and writ relief. The court emphasized that the fee must be limited to the reasonable cost of the separate assessments and must bear a fair relationship to the benefits received by the timeshare estate owners. View "Scott v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

Hamdi A. Mohamud, a plaintiff, sued Heather Weyker, a St. Paul police officer, for wrongful arrest. Weyker, while working as a cross-deputized federal agent on a federal task force, allegedly lied to protect a federal witness, Muna Abdulkadir, leading to Mohamud's arrest. Weyker falsely claimed that Mohamud and others were trying to intimidate Abdulkadir, resulting in their arrest for witness tampering. Mohamud spent about 25 months in custody before the charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota previously reviewed the case. Mohamud's claims were based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied Mohamud's requests for limited discovery and to amend her complaint, concluding that further discovery would be futile and that the proposed amendment would not change the outcome. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Weyker, following the reasoning from a similar case, Yassin v. Weyker, which held that Weyker did not act under color of state law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Weyker acted under federal authority, not state law, when she protected a federal witness in a federal investigation. The court found that the new facts alleged by Mohamud did not change the analysis from the Yassin case. The court also concluded that further discovery would not have made a difference and upheld the district court's denial of Mohamud's discovery request. View "Mohamud v. Weyker" on Justia Law

Bernard Perez, an ophthalmologist, entered into a disability insurance contract with MONY Life Insurance Company in 1988. After being diagnosed with throat cancer in 2011, Perez began receiving monthly disability benefits. MONY later suspected Perez of dishonesty in his disability claims and financial information, leading to the discontinuation of payments in February 2018. MONY sued Perez for unjust enrichment, and Perez counterclaimed for breach of contract.The Middle District of Florida held a nine-day trial where evidence showed Perez's deceitful conduct, including misrepresenting his ownership in his medical practice and overstating his physical ailments. The jury found in favor of MONY on the unjust enrichment claim, awarding $388,000, and rejected Perez's breach of contract counterclaim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under Florida law, an unjust enrichment claim cannot proceed when an express contract covers the same subject matter. Therefore, the district court erred in allowing the unjust enrichment claim to go to the jury. The Eleventh Circuit set aside the jury's verdict on this claim and directed the district court to vacate the judgment awarding MONY $448,930.06.Regarding Perez's breach of contract counterclaim, the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court erred in failing to interpret the ambiguous term "acceptable proof of loss" in the insurance contract. However, this error was deemed harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly showed Perez's dishonesty in his proofs of loss. Thus, the jury's verdict against Perez on his breach of contract counterclaim was affirmed. The court also affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings and denial of sanctions. View "MONY Life Insurance Co. v. Perez" on Justia Law

Virginia Giuffre, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual trafficking, filed a defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, an Epstein associate, in 2015. Giuffre alleged that Maxwell defamed her by calling her statements implicating Maxwell in Epstein’s trafficking “obvious lies.” The case involved extensive discovery, resulting in numerous documents being sealed. The case was settled in 2017, but various third parties, including the Miami Herald Media Company and reporter Julie Brown, sought to unseal the documents.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Preska) reviewed the sealed documents following a remand from the Second Circuit in Brown v. Maxwell. The district court unsealed many documents but declined to unseal others, leading to the current appeal. The district court held that undecided motions rendered moot by the settlement were not judicial documents subject to public access. It also found that certain deposition transcripts and documents involving third parties' privacy interests outweighed the presumption of public access.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in categorically excluding undecided motions from being considered judicial documents. The appellate court clarified that the judicial nature of a document is determined at the time of filing, regardless of subsequent mootness. The court also found that the district court erred in giving a "barely cognizable" presumption of access to Giuffre's Florida deposition transcript and in failing to treat filings related to sealing or unsealing motions as judicial documents.The Second Circuit vacated the district court's orders regarding the undecided motions and the Florida deposition transcript and remanded for further review. The court affirmed the district court's decisions in all other respects. View "Giuffre v. Maxwell" on Justia Law

The Vinales family leased a home at Randolph Air Force Base, managed by AETC II Privatized Housing, LLC, and other associated entities. They experienced issues with the home's condition, including mold and asbestos, which they claimed led to health problems and property damage. They sued the housing providers for breach of contract, fraud, and other claims, seeking damages and attorneys' fees.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment for the defendants on most claims, citing the federal enclave doctrine, which limits applicable law to federal law and pre-cession state law. The court dismissed the fraud claim for lack of evidence and denied the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. The breach of contract claim proceeded to trial, where the jury awarded the plaintiffs over $90,000 in damages. The magistrate judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the application of the federal enclave doctrine, which barred most of the plaintiffs' claims. It upheld the dismissal of the fraud claim, agreeing that the plaintiffs failed to identify actionable fraudulent statements. The court also affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees, finding no legal basis for the award. The exclusion of certain evidence at trial was deemed not to be an abuse of discretion. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's damages awards for personal property and diminution in rental value. Finally, the court held that the jury instructions were proper and did not create substantial doubt about the jury's guidance. The judgment of the magistrate judge was affirmed. View "Vinales v. AETC II Privatized Housing, LLC" on Justia Law

James Marion Del Duca filed a complaint against his ex-wife, Aria Skydancer, alleging Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED). The Eighteenth Judicial District Court for Gallatin County dismissed his claim with prejudice on Skydancer’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Del Duca appealed the dismissal, raising four issues: the court's error in concluding he failed to state a claim, the dismissal with prejudice, the denial of his request to amend his complaint, and the court's failure to explain its ruling.The District Court dismissed Del Duca's complaint without providing a detailed explanation for its decision. The court's order simply stated that the motion to dismiss was granted and the request for attorney fees was denied. Del Duca's motion to amend his complaint was also denied without explanation. Del Duca argued that the court erred by not specifying the grounds for its ruling, as required by Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(3).The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and found that the District Court failed to provide sufficient particularity in its order to apprise the parties and the appellate court of the rationale underlying the ruling. The Supreme Court noted that the District Court's failure to explain its decision left the parties and the appellate court to speculate about the reasons for the dismissal and the denial of the motion to amend. The Supreme Court vacated the District Court's order and remanded the case with instructions for the District Court to provide an order that specifies the grounds for its rulings, consistent with Rule 52(a)(3). The District Court must clarify whether it converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and provide reasons for dismissing Del Duca's claims and denying his motion to amend the complaint. View "Del Duca v. Skydancer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Tidrick purchased a vehicle from FCA US LLC (FCA) and experienced transmission issues, leading her to request FCA repurchase the vehicle under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. FCA initially declined, prompting Tidrick to file a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court. The parties eventually settled, with FCA agreeing to repurchase the vehicle, pay restitution, and cover attorney fees and costs. Tidrick sought $82,719.33 in attorney fees and costs, but the trial court awarded her only $15,000, a significant reduction.The Orange County Superior Court, where the case was initially filed, awarded Tidrick $15,000 in attorney fees and costs, applying hourly rates prevailing in Fresno County, where Tidrick resided and purchased the vehicle. The court justified this by referencing Code of Civil Procedure section 395, subdivision (b), which it interpreted as mandating venue in Fresno County. The court also criticized the number of hours billed and the lack of a settlement agreement copy, suggesting the litigation was unnecessarily prolonged.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court erred in applying Fresno County rates instead of Orange County rates, as venue was proper in Orange County where FCA's principal place of business is located. The appellate court also found that the trial court abused its discretion by not properly applying the lodestar method to calculate attorney fees and failing to specify the amount of costs awarded. The appellate court reversed the trial court's award and remanded the case with directions to recalculate the attorney fees using Orange County rates and to clarify the costs awarded. View "Tidrick v. FCA US LLC" on Justia Law

CPI Security Systems, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Vivint Smart Home, Inc., alleging that Vivint engaged in deceptive practices to lure away CPI’s customers. Vivint sales representatives falsely claimed that Vivint had acquired CPI, that CPI was going out of business, or that Vivint needed to upgrade CPI’s equipment. These tactics led many CPI customers to switch to Vivint, causing significant losses for CPI. A jury found Vivint liable for violating the Lanham Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), and for committing the common-law torts of unfair competition and tortious interference with contracts. The jury awarded CPI $49.7 million in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitive damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina upheld the jury’s verdict. Vivint appealed, raising several issues, including the requirement of CPI’s reliance on false statements for the UDTPA claim, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages award, the application of North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages, and the admission of prejudicial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that CPI was not required to prove its own reliance on Vivint’s false statements to establish a UDTPA claim, as the claim was based on unfair competition rather than fraud. The court also found that the evidence presented by CPI was sufficient to support the jury’s damages award. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court correctly applied North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages by considering the total compensatory damages awarded. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vivint’s motion to bifurcate the trial or in its evidentiary rulings. The reassignment of the trial judge post-trial did not warrant a new trial. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc." on Justia Law

Jane Doe attended high school in City View Independent School District from 2016 to 2020, where she was allegedly sexually abused by her teacher, Robert Morris. The abuse reportedly began when Doe was a fifteen-year-old freshman and continued until she graduated. Doe claims that she reported the abuse to school officials in 2018, but they threatened her with retaliation and did not report the abuse to law enforcement. In 2022, after public outcry over Morris being named coach of the year, Doe publicly stated her experiences, leading to further threats from school officials.Doe filed a lawsuit against City View ISD and several school officials in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on April 4, 2023. The district court dismissed her second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that her claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Doe appealed the dismissal of her Title IX claims, arguing that her claims were timely due to the continuing violation doctrine or equitable tolling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that Doe's Title IX claims were barred by the statute of limitations, as they accrued no later than May 2020 when she graduated. The court also found that Doe's arguments for equitable tolling and the continuing violation doctrine were unavailing. Additionally, the court determined that Doe could not convert her First Amendment retaliation claim, based on a 2022 letter from a school official, into a Title IX retaliation claim. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Doe leave to amend her complaint. View "Doe v. City View Independent School District" on Justia Law

Capital Video Corporation (CVC) obtained a judgment against Joseph A. Bevilacqua in 2002 for $178,000 plus interest. CVC requested and received an original execution in December 2002, which lapsed. In 2004, CVC obtained an alias execution, recorded it against property jointly owned by Bevilacqua and his wife, Donna Bevilacqua. In 2005, CVC obtained another alias execution, recorded it against another jointly owned property, and later partially discharged it. In 2020, CVC requested a replacement execution, which was issued and recorded against a property in North Providence. This property was later transferred to Donna Bevilacqua and then to her trust. In 2022, CVC obtained another pluries execution and scheduled a constable’s sale of the property. Donna Bevilacqua intervened, seeking to prevent the sale.The Superior Court invalidated the 2020 and 2022 pluries executions, finding that they were not issued within the six-year limitation period set by § 9-25-3. The court determined that the 2020 execution was not issued within six years of the 2005 alias execution and that the 2022 execution was invalid because it assumed the validity of the 2020 execution.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The Court held that the 2020 and 2022 pluries executions were invalid because they were not issued within the six-year period required by § 9-25-3. Additionally, CVC failed to properly apply for a replacement execution and did not provide proof that the 2005 alias execution was lost or destroyed. The Court concluded that the trial justice did not err in ordering the release and discharge of the 2020 and 2022 pluries executions. View "Capital Video Corp. v. Bevilacqua" on Justia Law