Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, representing a class of drivers, alleged that Progressive Specialty Insurance and Progressive Advanced Insurance systematically underestimated the actual cash value (ACV) of their totaled vehicles, thereby breaching their insurance agreements. The plaintiffs claimed that Progressive's method of calculating ACV, which included a "Projected Sold Adjustment" (PSA) to account for the fact that used cars often sell for less than their listed prices, was improper and resulted in underpayment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified two damages classes, finding that the plaintiffs' claims centered on the legitimacy of the PSAs and that this issue could be resolved on a class-wide basis. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing and rejected Progressive's arguments against commonality, predominance, superiority, and adequacy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the District Court had abused its discretion in certifying the classes. The Third Circuit held that proving whether Progressive undercompensated each class member was an individual issue that could not be resolved on a class-wide basis. The court emphasized that the key issue was whether each class member received less than the true ACV of their vehicle, which would require individualized inquiries. As a result, the court found that common issues did not predominate over individual ones, and the District Court's certification of the classes was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Drummond v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Ruben Santoyo, proceeding without counsel, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Chicago and two police officers, challenging the constitutionality of his arrest. Over three years, Santoyo repeatedly filed frivolous motions, many of which attacked the competence and integrity of the district judge. Despite numerous warnings from the judge that further frivolous filings would result in sanctions, Santoyo continued his behavior.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denied Santoyo's motions to vacate the judgment. While Santoyo's appeal of the denial was pending, the defendants moved to recover their costs. Instead of addressing the merits of this motion, Santoyo accused the defendants of bad faith and requested disciplinary action against their counsel. The district judge, having lost patience, granted the defendants' motion for costs, imposed a $1,500 sanction on Santoyo, and referred him to the district's Executive Committee, which barred future filings until the sanction was paid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Santoyo argued that the district judge violated his due process rights by not notifying him of the sanction or giving him an opportunity to respond. The appellate court disagreed, noting that Santoyo had been warned multiple times about the consequences of further frivolous filings. The court held that the district judge provided sufficient notice and opportunity for Santoyo to respond, satisfying due process requirements. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of sanctions. View "Santoyo v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Jose Cruz-Muniz and Sandra Cruz were injured in a car accident in 2018 and received treatment from C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC. They assigned their rights to seek personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits from Progressive Michigan Insurance Company to C-Spine. C-Spine then assigned its accounts receivable, including the claims for unpaid benefits, to several factoring companies. Progressive argued that C-Spine lacked standing to seek payment because it had assigned its rights to the factoring companies. C-Spine countered with signed counter-assignments from the factoring companies, purportedly restoring its right to bring suits. The trial court initially denied Progressive's motion but later granted it, concluding that C-Spine lacked standing when the complaints were filed.In a separate case, Parie Wallace was injured in a bus accident and received treatment from several providers, including C-Spine. Wallace assigned her rights to seek PIP benefits to these providers. She later filed a lawsuit against Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) seeking payment of PIP benefits. SMART argued that Wallace could not bring the action because she had assigned her rights to the providers. The trial court allowed Wallace to obtain revocations of the assignments, which she did, and then denied SMART's motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Wallace was not the real party in interest when she filed her complaint and that her claims were barred by the one-year-back rule.The Michigan Supreme Court held that both C-Spine and Wallace had standing to file their lawsuits but were not the real parties in interest at the time they filed suit because they had assigned their claims. The Court ruled that defects in real party in interest status could be cured after filing a lawsuit. In C-Spine's case, the Court of Appeals' judgment was affirmed on alternate grounds, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In Wallace's case, the Court of Appeals' judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, and the case was remanded for the trial court to consider whether equitable rescission was warranted and whether the real party in interest defect could be cured. View "C-Spine Orthopedics PLLC v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Company" on Justia Law

C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC, filed two actions in the Macomb Circuit Court against Progressive Michigan Insurance Company to recover personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits for care provided to Jose Cruz-Muniz and Sandra Cruz, who were injured in a 2018 car accident. Jose and Sandra assigned their rights to seek PIP benefits to C-Spine, which then assigned its accounts receivable, including these claims, to factoring companies. Progressive moved for summary disposition, arguing C-Spine lacked standing as it had assigned its rights. The trial court initially denied but later granted the motion, concluding C-Spine lacked standing when the complaints were filed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding C-Spine retained its claims for PIP benefits under MCL 500.3112.Parie Wallace filed an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) seeking PIP benefits after being injured in a bus accident. Wallace assigned her rights to PIP benefits to her medical providers. SMART moved for summary disposition, arguing Wallace could not bring the action due to the assignments. The trial court allowed Wallace to obtain revocations of the assignments, which she did, and then denied SMART’s motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Wallace was not the real party in interest when she filed her complaint and that her claims were barred by the one-year-back rule.The Michigan Supreme Court held that both C-Spine and Wallace had standing to file their lawsuits but were not real parties in interest at the time of filing due to their assignments. The Court ruled that defects in real party in interest status could be cured after filing. In C-Spine’s case, the Court of Appeals’ judgment was affirmed on alternate grounds, and the case was remanded to the trial court to consider whether C-Spine could cure the defect. In Wallace’s case, the Court of Appeals’ judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, and the case was remanded for the trial court to consider whether equitable rescission was warranted and whether the real party in interest defect could be cured. View "Wallace v. Smart" on Justia Law

In 2008, the former Attorney General of Mississippi entered into a retention agreement with the Kilborn Firm to sue Entergy Corporation over electricity rates. The Kilborn Firm then agreed to split any compensation with Roedel Parsons, a Louisiana law firm. After years of litigation, the trial judge granted Entergy’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice. The State did not appeal. Roedel Parsons then sued the State, claiming it was entitled to $34,625,000 as a third-party beneficiary under the retention agreement or, alternatively, for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit recovery.The Hinds County Circuit Court granted the State’s motion to dismiss under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court found that Roedel Parsons was not a third-party beneficiary under the retention agreement, as the agreement specified that any associated attorneys would be at the Kilborn Firm’s expense and at no cost to the State. The court also found that Roedel Parsons failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit recovery, as the State had no obligation to compensate Roedel Parsons under the terms of the agreement.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Roedel Parsons was not a third-party beneficiary under the retention agreement and had no standing to sue the State for breach of contract. The court also held that Roedel Parsons failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit recovery, as the State had no reasonable expectation to compensate Roedel Parsons. The court further found that the common-fund doctrine did not apply, as Roedel Parsons failed to identify a specific fund or class of beneficiaries. View "Roedel Parsons Blache Fontana Piontek & Pisano v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

In March 2021, the district attorneys of Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Santa Clara counties filed a civil enforcement action against Credit One Bank, N.A. (Credit One) on behalf of the People of the State of California. The lawsuit alleged that Credit One engaged in debt collection practices that violated California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Unfair Competition Law. The People sought injunctive relief, civil penalties, restitution, and other equitable relief. Credit One responded with written discovery requests and later noticed the deposition of the People’s person most qualified (PMQ) to testify on 25 topics, including two document requests.The trial court denied the People’s motion to quash the deposition notice but instructed them to refile it as a motion for a protective order. The court granted the protective order in part, limiting the deposition topics and document requests but requiring the People to designate a PMQ. The People challenged this order, arguing that they should not be subject to deposition under the Code of Civil Procedure and that the deposition would be tantamount to deposing opposing counsel.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the People, represented by government agencies, are subject to deposition under section 2025.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the court agreed that deposing the People in this context is effectively deposing opposing counsel. Therefore, the court applied the standard from Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court, requiring Credit One to demonstrate “extremely” good cause for the deposition. The trial court had not applied this standard, so the appellate court granted the petition and ordered the trial court to reconsider the People’s motion for a protective order using the correct standard. View "People v. Superior Ct. (Credit One Bank)" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Robert and Etleva Stratoberdha, filed a lawsuit in Superior Court against Clements Properties, LLC, Robert P. Rucando, and officials from the Town of Portsmouth. They alleged that Clements Properties caused continuous trespass by creating an illegal drainage structure, Rucando failed to disclose flooding issues when selling the property, and the Town neglected to enforce ordinances. During the prolonged litigation, Etleva filed for divorce, and the Family Court issued orders related to the sale of the marital home and the settlement of the Superior Court action.The Family Court appointed a Commissioner to sell the marital home and authorized her to settle the Superior Court action. Robert did not appeal these orders. The Family Court later approved a settlement agreement where Clements Properties would buy the marital home for $870,000, and the Town would pay $75,000 in damages. The Family Court's orders and the settlement agreement were incorporated into the interlocutory decision pending entry of final judgment in the divorce case. Robert's appeal of this decision was dismissed as untimely.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's order approving the settlement agreement. The Court held that the Family Court's orders were final and could not be challenged in the Superior Court. The Superior Court's approval of the settlement agreement was a ministerial act based on the Family Court's final decrees. The Court found no merit in Robert's arguments and concluded that the Superior Court properly relied on the Family Court's orders. View "Stratoberdhav. Clements Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiffs, Kristina Urbonas and Arunas Aniukstis, purchased property at 5 Bowser Court in Newport, Rhode Island. The defendant, NRI 51 Kingston Partnership (NRI), acquired adjacent property at 51 Kingston Avenue. A dispute arose when NRI's representative, John Gullison, conducted renovations and removed part of the plaintiffs' cobblestone landing, claiming it encroached on NRI's property. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of ownership over the disputed land based on the doctrine of acquiescence, adverse possession, and an easement by prescription.The Superior Court awarded title to the plaintiffs for the disputed land, finding that the plaintiffs had acquired the land through the doctrine of acquiescence. The court also granted title to other abutters of Bowser Court, even though they had not requested such relief. NRI appealed, arguing that the trial justice misapplied the doctrine of acquiescence and erred in awarding title to other abutters.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the trial justice erred in granting relief to the other abutters who had not requested it. The court also determined that the doctrine of acquiescence was not applicable because the disputed boundary was not solely on the parties' adjoining lots but also bordered Bowser Court. However, the court found that the plaintiffs had established an easement by prescription over the five-foot strip of land, as they had used the walkway openly, continuously, and hostilely for the statutory period.The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment in part, recognizing the plaintiffs' easement by prescription, and vacated the part of the judgment granting relief to the other abutters. View "Urbonas v. Gullison" on Justia Law

Sharon Andersen filed a complaint against the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) alleging hostile-work-environment disability discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA). Andersen, who worked for DHHS from 2005 to 2019, claimed that from July 2018 to August 2019, she experienced increased stress and anxiety due to her workload and interactions with her supervisor. She reported panic attacks and was eventually diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Andersen requested reasonable accommodations, including reassignment, which were denied. She went on medical leave in January 2019 and resigned in August 2019, claiming constructive discharge.The Superior Court (Cumberland County) granted summary judgment in favor of DHHS, concluding that Andersen’s claim was time-barred. The court found that the only actions within the statutory limitations period were DHHS’s refusal to reassign Andersen and her resignation, neither of which were discriminatory in themselves or indicative of a continuing violation.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that Andersen did not make a prima facie showing of a continuing violation. The Court determined that Andersen’s resignation, occurring more than seven months after she went on medical leave, was too disconnected from the alleged hostile work environment to qualify as a constructive discharge. Additionally, the Court noted that DHHS’s refusal to reassign Andersen was not a required reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the MHRA. Therefore, Andersen’s claim was deemed untimely, and the summary judgment in favor of DHHS was affirmed. View "Andersen v. Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

C.C. is the mother of B.F. and I.F. In November 2021, she left the children with their paternal uncle, who provided a stable home. In November 2022, the children came under the protective custody of the Cass County Human Service Zone (CHSZ) due to concerns of parental abandonment. The whereabouts of A.F., the father, were unknown. In March 2023, the juvenile court adjudicated the children as needing protection and placed them in CHSZ custody for nine months, finding aggravating factors and adopting a reunification plan. In December 2023, CHSZ filed a petition to terminate C.C.'s parental rights but later amended it to extend CHSZ custody for nine months due to C.C.'s progress. In February 2024, the court granted CHSZ custody for an additional nine months with concurrent plans of reunification and termination.In October 2024, CHSZ petitioned to terminate C.C. and A.F.'s parental rights, citing C.C.'s failure to maintain progress on the reunification plan. C.C. attended the initial hearing and a status conference in December 2024 but failed to attend the February 2025 status conference. The court found C.C. and A.F. in default and terminated their parental rights, noting C.C.'s continued drug use, failure to secure stable housing and employment, and lack of consistent participation in visitations and services.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's order. The court held that the juvenile court did not err in finding C.C. in default and that the evidence supported the termination of parental rights. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying C.C.'s motion to vacate the default judgment and concluded that the termination did not violate C.C.'s constitutional due process rights. View "Interest of B.F." on Justia Law