Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Convent filed suit in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, seeking to appeal a resolution that the North Little Rock City Council passed declaring Convent's property a nuisance and condemning the property. In the same complaint, Convent asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code 16-123-101, and a common law claim of trespass. The defendants removed the case to federal district court based on the federal claims and then moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court did not grant the motion, but found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Convent's claims based on Convent's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies; the court remanded the case to state court. Convent sought costs, fees, and expenses incurred due to “improper removal." The district court rejected the motion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal of this action to federal court. View "Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock" on Justia Law

Oplus filed a patent infringement suit in Illinois that was transferred to California. Oplus moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the case back and consolidate it with other cases. The Panel denied the motion. Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. Defendant sought attorneys’ and expert witness fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 and 28 U.S.C. 1927. The court made numerous findings regarding misconduct, found the case exceptional under section 285, and held that Oplus and its counsel were vexatious litigants. The court nonetheless denied the request, stating that “[a]though Oplus’s behavior has been inappropriate, unprofessional, and vexatious, an award of attorney fees must take the particular misconduct into account,” the “case has been fraught with delays and avoidance tactics to some degree on both sides,” and “[t]here is little reason to believe that significantly more attorney fees or expert fees have been incurred than would have been in the absence of Oplus’s vexatious behavior.” Concerning section 1927, the court stated that “there is no evidence suggesting that Oplus’s behavior stemmed from bad faith or a sufficient intent to harass,” although there was “ample evidence of Oplus’s litigation misconduct.” The Federal Circuit vacated, finding the denial an abuse of discretion. View "Oplus Techs., Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc." on Justia Law

In a per curiam order, the Supreme Court found that court reporter Sheila Russell failed to comply with a writ of certiorari issued by the Court for the completion of the record in the above-captioned case. The Court ordered Russell to appear to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for her failure to comply with the writ. Russell appeared before the Court and entered a plea of not guilty. Accordingly, the Court appointed a special master to conduct a hearing on the matter and to make findings of fact. After a hearing, the special master found that Russell’s failure to comply with the writ was not justified and was contrary to her duties as an official court reporter. The Supreme Court accepted the findings of the special master and held Russell in contempt of court for willfully failing to prepare the instant record in a timely manner and in accordance with the directive of the Court. View "James Tree & Crane Serv., Inc. v. Fought" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were represented by defendant attorneys in an action against State Farm arising out of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Court-appointed retired judges presided over a 1997 aggregate settlement. In 2012, one of the plaintiffs conducted a random sampling of other plaintiffs’ awards in the action, which, they claimed, revealed that the defendants had not properly disbursed or accounted for the settlement funds and had concealed this conduct from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought damages for failure to obtain their informed consent to an aggregate settlement and misappropriation of and failure to account for the settlement funds. The trial court dismissed, finding the claims based on speculation and barred by the statute of limitations. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the statute of limitations had not run under Probate Code section 16460 because they had no notice of wrongdoing and that actions for violations of Business and Professions Code section 6091 in failing to provide an accounting are not barred because their action was filed within one year of failure to comply with the statute. Where there are facts sufficient to put one on inquiry notice, the fraud statute of limitations starts running even when the defendant is a fiduciary. View "Britton v. Girardi" on Justia Law

Colosi lost a wrongful termination suit against her former employer, JLL. As the prevailing party, JLL filed a $6,369.55 bill of costs that the court clerk approved without modification, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Colosi objected to most of the charges and moved to reduce the bill to $253.50. The district court denied the motion, finding each cost reasonable, necessary to the litigation, and properly taxable under statute, 28 U.S.C. 1920. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Most of the costs Colosi challenged related to witness depositions. Necessity is determined as of the time of taking, and the fact that a deposition is not actually used at trial is not controlling. View "Colosi v. Jones Lang LaSalle Am., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was awarded monetary sanctions for attorney's fees and expenses he accrued in defending a defamation action brought by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that defendant, publisher of a website called Iranianlobby.com, defamed plaintiffs in a series of articles and blog posts claiming that they had secretly lobbied on behalf of the Iranian regime in the United States. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's award of sanctions. The court concluded that the district court was well within its discretion in sanctioning plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 where plaintiffs failed to obey two direct court orders. The district court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiffs acted in bad faith in light of their failure to explain their withholding of so many relevant documents, some of which they misrepresented to the district court that they could not locate. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part the district court's award of sanctions. The court reversed the award related to defendant's expenses in preparing the portions of his motion related to NIAC's alteration of a document and Trita Parsi's interrogatory responses, as well as the award of post-judgment interest to run from September 13, 2010. The court remanded for further consideration. View "Parsi v. Daioleslam" on Justia Law

In 1999, Christeson was convicted of three counts of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed Christeson’s conviction and sentence and denial of his post-conviction motion for relief. Under the one-year limitations period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U. S. C. 244(d)(1), Christeson’s federal habeas petition was due on April 10, 2005. Nine months before that deadline, the court appointed attorneys Horwitz and Butts to represent Christeson, 18 U. S. C. 599(a)(2). The attorneys subsequently acknowledged that they failed to meet with Christeson until six weeks after his petition was due. There is no evidence that they communicated with him at all. They finally filed the petition 117 days late. The district court dismissed; the Eighth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Christeson, who has severe cognitive disabilities, relied entirely on his attorneys, and may not have known of the dismissal. About seven years later, the attorneys contacted attorneys Merrigan and Perkovich to discuss Christeson’s case. Christeson’s only hope for merits review was to move under FRCP60(b) to reopen final judgment on the ground that AEDPA’s statute of limitations should have been equitably tolled. Horwitz and Butts would not file that motion, premised on their own malfeasance. In 2014, Merrigan and Perkovich unsuccessfully moved to substitute counsel. The Eighth Circuit dismissed, reasoning that they were not authorized to file on Christeson’s behalf. The Missouri Supreme Court set an October 29, 2014 execution date. The district court denied a second motion as untimely, stating that Horwitz and Butts had not “abandoned” Christeson, and reasoning that allowing the motion would permit “‘abusive’” delays in capital cases. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court stayed execution and reversed, stating that the denials contravened its 2012 decision, Martel v. Clair, concerning the “interests of justice” standard, and noting the obvious conflict of interest with respect to the original attorneys. View "Christeson v. Roper" on Justia Law

Rojas sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that Cicero fired him because he supported a political opponent of the town president. A jury awarded him $650,000 in damages, but the judge granted a new trial, concluding that Kurtz, Rojas’s lawyer, had engaged in misconduct by making misleading statements, eliciting hearsay responses to prejudice the defendants even though the judge would strike them, arguing in a way that informed the jury about excluded evidence, and undermining the credibility of a defense witness by asking questions that presented him in a bad light, without a good-faith basis for the questions. The parties settled, providing Rojas with $212,500 compensation for the discharge and Kurtz with fees of $287,500. The settlement did not resolve motions for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. 1927, which authorizes sanctions against lawyers who needlessly multiply proceedings, and under FRCP 26(g)(3) based on not revealing bankruptcy proceedings that could have affected whether Rojas was a proper plaintiff. The judge denied sanctions, reasoning that Rojas and Kurtz lost about $400,000 apiece when the settlement replaced the verdict. The Seventh Circuit affirmed with respect to section 1927, but vacated with respect to the rule, which does not afford judges the same discretion. View "Rojas v. Town of Cicero" on Justia Law

Howard allegedly rear-ended Gumby's vehicle, Gumby sued Howard and his employer, UPS. Contending that Gumby’s health might have contributed to the accident, UPS requested information including medical records and the identity of anyone with knowledge concerning this defense. Gumby provided the names of one physician and one hospital from which he had received pre-accident care. Gumby died a year later. Comstock, Gumby’s daughter and estate administrator, was substituted as plaintiff. A year after discovery began, Comstock produced documents revealing more medical providers, but did not produce all requested information. The court ordered Comstock to complete production by September 28. She failed to do so. In December 2012, Comstock provided UPS with over 3,000 pages of documents. Some were duplicates, but new documents showed that Gumby had vision problems; suffered dizziness, paranoia, and hallucinations while driving; had been instructed not to drive at night; and had been hospitalized hours before the accident. Comstock had called law enforcement that night, worried because Gumby, had left Pennsylvania to drive to Arkansas. UPS had already deposed Gumby and family members. The district court noted further misconduct concerning expert test results. The court found “extreme prejudice” and sanctioned Comstock under FRCP37(b)(2) by dismissal. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.View "Comstock v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc." on Justia Law

Howard allegedly rear-ended Gumby's vehicle, Gumby sued Howard and his employer, UPS. Contending that Gumby’s health might have contributed to the accident, UPS requested information including medical records and the identity of anyone with knowledge concerning this defense. Gumby provided the names of one physician and one hospital from which he had received pre-accident care. Gumby died a year later. Comstock, Gumby’s daughter and estate administrator, was substituted as plaintiff. A year after discovery began, Comstock produced documents revealing more medical providers, but did not produce all requested information. The court ordered Comstock to complete production by September 28. She failed to do so. In December 2012, Comstock provided UPS with over 3,000 pages of documents. Some were duplicates, but new documents showed that Gumby had vision problems; suffered dizziness, paranoia, and hallucinations while driving; had been instructed not to drive at night; and had been hospitalized hours before the accident. Comstock had called law enforcement that night, worried because Gumby, had left Pennsylvania to drive to Arkansas. UPS had already deposed Gumby and family members. The district court noted further misconduct concerning expert test results. The court found “extreme prejudice” and sanctioned Comstock under FRCP37(b)(2) by dismissal. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Comstock v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc." on Justia Law