Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Niv Goomai and Bar Hajbi purchased a property in Cincinnati and contracted with H&E Enterprise, L.L.C., Ohad Investment Group, and Avi Ohad for renovations. The renovations were not completed, leading Goomai to sell the property. Goomai then sued the defendants for breach of contract, violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking actual damages but not injunctive relief.A jury trial was held before a magistrate, where the jury found that H&E had breached its contract and awarded Goomai $30,604.09 in damages. The jury also found that H&E and Ohad had engaged in deceptive trade practices but awarded $0 in damages for this violation. The jury ruled in favor of the defendants on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Goomai subsequently filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, which the magistrate denied, reasoning that Goomai did not qualify as a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act since they did not obtain any relief on the merits of their claim. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, and Goomai appealed.The First District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act is one who obtains a judgment in their favor, regardless of whether they received a remedy. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of attorney’s fees to which Goomai was entitled.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and concluded that to be a prevailing party under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a plaintiff must obtain actual damages or injunctive relief. Since Goomai did not receive any monetary damages or injunctive relief, they were not considered prevailing parties. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment denying attorney’s fees. View "Goomai v. H&E Enterprise, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The case involves a medical malpractice suit brought by the parents of a stillborn child against the midwives who attended the birth. The plaintiffs alleged that the midwives failed to obtain informed consent for delivery by midwife at a birth center instead of by a physician at a hospital. They claimed the midwives did not disclose the risks associated with midwife delivery for an expectant mother of advanced maternal age with a history of miscarriage. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the midwives, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that midwife delivery caused the stillbirth.The superior court found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to establish proximate cause, a necessary element in informed consent claims. The court noted that the plaintiffs needed to show both that they would not have consented to the treatment if properly informed and that the treatment caused the injury. The midwives presented expert testimony indicating that their care did not cause the stillbirth, and the plaintiffs failed to rebut this with their own expert evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's summary judgment in favor of the midwives. The court held that the plaintiffs did not present admissible evidence to dispute the midwives' expert opinion that the stillbirth was caused by an infection unrelated to the midwives' care. The court also affirmed the superior court's award of enhanced attorney’s fees to the midwives, finding that the plaintiffs engaged in vexatious or bad faith conduct during the litigation. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to provide necessary expert testimony on causation was fatal to their claims. View "Goodwin v. Mat-Su Midwifery, Inc." on Justia Law

PS Products, Inc. and Billy Pennington (collectively, PSP) own a U.S. Design Patent for a long-spiked electrode for a stun device. They filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Arkansas against Panther Trading Company, Inc. (Panther) for patent infringement. Panther responded with a Rule 11 letter and a motion to dismiss, arguing the infringement claims were frivolous and the venue was improper. PSP did not respond to these communications and later moved to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice. Panther then sought attorney fees and sanctions, claiming the lawsuit was frivolous.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the case with prejudice and awarded Panther attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285, deeming the case exceptional. The court also imposed $25,000 in deterrence sanctions on PSP under its inherent power, citing PSP's history of filing meritless lawsuits. PSP filed a motion for reconsideration of the sanctions, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. PSP appealed the $25,000 sanctions, arguing the district court lacked authority to impose them in addition to attorney fees and that the court applied the wrong legal standard. The Federal Circuit held that the district court did not err in imposing sanctions under its inherent power, even after awarding attorney fees under § 285. The court found that PSP's conduct, including filing a meritless lawsuit and citing the wrong venue statute, justified the sanctions. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision and declined Panther's request for attorney fees for the appeal, determining the appeal was not frivolous as argued. View "PS Products, Inc. v. Panther Trading Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Hurricane Katrina destroyed Paul and Sylvia Minor’s home in 2005. The Minors had a homeowner’s insurance policy with United Services Automobile Association (USAA) that covered wind damage but excluded storm surge or flood damage. USAA issued payments for wind damage but not for storm surge or flood damage, leading to a dispute. The Minors claimed a total loss due to wind and demanded policy limits. In 2013, a jury awarded the Minors $1,547,293.37 in compensatory damages.The Minor Estate appealed a pretrial order granting partial summary judgment to USAA on the Minors’ bad faith claim. The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding USAA’s denial and delay of payment. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the bad faith claim. On remand, a jury awarded the Minors $10,000,000 in punitive damages and $457,858.89 in extra-contractual damages (attorneys’ fees). USAA appealed, and the Minor Estate cross-appealed the denial of its post-trial motion for additional attorneys’ fees.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found no reversible error, affirming the jury’s award of $10,457,858.89 in damages. The court also reversed and rendered attorneys’ fees on behalf of the Estate in the amount of $4,500,000, plus post-judgment interest. The court held that the trial judge did not err in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury and that the $10 million punitive damages award was not unconstitutionally disproportionate. The court also found no error in the jury’s award of extra-contractual damages and no errors warranting a new trial. View "United Services Automobile Association v. Estate of Minor" on Justia Law

Nolan D. Palmer appealed a circuit court order enforcing sureties' liability related to a fee dispute among attorneys Barry Wade Gilmer, Seth Little, and Chuck McRae. McRae had initially sued Barry in Hinds County Chancery Court, and Barry subsequently filed a complaint in Madison County Circuit Court against Little, McRae, and McRae's attorneys, Michele Biegel and Bettie Ruth Johnson. The Madison County Circuit Court transferred the entire suit to Hinds County Chancery Court, but the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed this transfer for the claims against Biegel and Johnson, remanding the case back to Madison County Circuit Court. On remand, the circuit court dismissed Barry's complaint against Biegel and Johnson as frivolous and ordered Barry to pay their costs.Barry appealed and filed an appeal bond with supersedeas, signed by Barry, Matthew Gilmer, and Palmer. The bond was not signed by the circuit clerk. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's orders, and Biegel and Johnson moved to enforce the sureties' liability, claiming Barry had not satisfied the judgments. The circuit court found the bond enforceable as a contract, holding Barry and Palmer liable.Palmer appealed, arguing he was denied due process, the bond was invalid, and the circuit court erred in enforcing the bond as a contract. The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that Palmer waived his arguments by failing to appear or defend the motion in the circuit court. The court held that Palmer was provided due process as required under Rule 8(d) and affirmed the circuit court's order enforcing sureties' liability. View "Palmer v. McRae" on Justia Law

Attorney Stephen Eberhardt filed a 102-page, 19-count complaint against 11 defendants, including the Village of Tinley Park, its officials, attorneys, and residents, alleging a scheme to prevent him from making public comments at Village board meetings and on Village-related Facebook pages, violating his constitutional rights. He also brought claims against the Village’s outside counsel, Patrick Walsh, under the Illinois Open Meetings Act. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for being too lengthy and jumbled. Eberhardt then filed an amended complaint, which was also dismissed, and the court entered final judgment.Following the judgment, Walsh’s attorney filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Eberhardt’s claims were frivolous and filed in bad faith to harass Walsh. The district court granted the motion, ordering Eberhardt to pay $26,951.22 in attorneys’ fees, finding that his claims were frivolous and brought with inadequate investigation into the relevant law and facts. The court noted Eberhardt’s history of filing numerous lawsuits and motions, which indicated bad faith.Eberhardt appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, challenging the district court’s decision to sanction him and its denial of his motion to reconsider. The Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decisions. The court affirmed the sanctions order, agreeing that Eberhardt’s claims were frivolous and brought in bad faith, and that a hearing was not necessary as the record was adequate to determine the need for sanctions. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to reconsider, finding no manifest errors of law or fact. View "Eberhardt v. Walsh" on Justia Law

In 2001, Alphonse Fletcher, Jr. acquired property associated with two apartment units in a residential cooperative corporation controlled by The Dakota, Inc. In 2008, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. approved a loan to Fletcher, secured by his rights in the property. Fletcher, Chase, and The Dakota entered into an agreement recognizing The Dakota's priority to proceeds from any sale or subletting of Fletcher's apartments. In 2011, Fletcher sued The Dakota for racial discrimination, and The Dakota counterclaimed for legal fees and costs based on Fletcher's proprietary lease.The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to The Dakota in the Fletcher action and awarded attorneys' fees and costs. While this action was pending, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP initiated a CPLR 5225 proceeding against Chase, The Dakota, and Fletcher to seize and sell Fletcher's apartments to satisfy a judgment for unpaid legal fees. The Dakota claimed a superior interest in Fletcher's property based on the fee judgment, while Chase argued that The Dakota's lien was not superior and that the lease provision authorizing attorneys' fees was either inapplicable or unconscionable.The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to The Dakota, and the Appellate Division affirmed, stating that Chase's contentions were an impermissible collateral attack on The Dakota's judgment. Chase moved for leave to appeal and to intervene and vacate the judgment in the Fletcher action. The Supreme Court denied Chase's motion, but the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.The New York Court of Appeals held that Chase, as a nonparty to the original action, was not barred from challenging the fee award in a separate proceeding. The court concluded that Chase was not required to intervene in the Fletcher action to protect its interests and that doing so would violate Chase's due process rights. The order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings. View "Matter of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In July 2020, the plaintiff used Uber's app to request a ride. Upon being dropped off in the middle of a roadway, she was struck by another vehicle and sustained injuries. She filed a personal injury lawsuit against Uber in November 2020, serving the complaint via the New York Secretary of State. Uber did not respond within the required 30 days, allegedly due to mail processing delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.In January 2021, Uber updated its terms of use, including an arbitration agreement, and notified users via email. The plaintiff received and opened this email. When she next logged into the Uber app, she was presented with a pop-up screen requiring her to agree to the updated terms to continue using the service. She checked a box and clicked "Confirm," thereby agreeing to the terms, which included a clause delegating the authority to resolve disputes about the agreement's applicability and enforceability to an arbitrator.The plaintiff moved for a default judgment in March 2021, and Uber responded by asserting that she had agreed to arbitrate her claims. Uber then sent a Notice of Intent to Arbitrate. The plaintiff moved to stay Uber's arbitration demand, arguing that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and violated ethical rules. Uber cross-moved to compel arbitration.The Supreme Court granted Uber's motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff was on inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement and had assented to it. The Appellate Division affirmed, stating that the plaintiff's challenges to the agreement's validity must be decided by an arbitrator due to the delegation provision.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the clickwrap process used by Uber resulted in a valid agreement to arbitrate. The court also held that the delegation provision was valid and that the plaintiff's challenges to the arbitration agreement's enforceability should be resolved by an arbitrator. The court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's decision not to sanction Uber for the alleged ethical violation. View "Wu v. Uber Tech., Inc." on Justia Law

Gary Everett Martin obtained a home-equity line of credit (HELOC) from BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (BBVA) in May 2008, secured by a mortgage on his residential property. In June 2008, Martin hired Joseph T. Scarborough, Jr., and Scarborough & Griggs, LLC (S&G) for legal representation in a divorce action. In June 2012, Martin executed a promissory note in favor of S&G for legal fees, secured by a second mortgage on the property. The attorney-client relationship ended in June 2013, and the promissory note and mortgage were later assigned to Scarborough. In June 2019, BBVA foreclosed on the property, and Scarborough purchased it at the foreclosure sale.The Lee Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Scarborough, S&G, and BBVA, dismissing Martin's counterclaims and awarding possession of the property to Scarborough. The court found Martin's claims against the Scarborough parties time-barred under the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act (ALSLA) and dismissed his claims against BBVA as time-barred or unsupported by substantial evidence.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of the foreclosure sale, as the sale price was significantly lower than the property's fair market value, potentially indicating fraud or unfairness. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Scarborough on his ejectment claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Scarborough parties and BBVA regarding Martin's counterclaims, finding them time-barred or unsupported by substantial evidence. View "Martin v. Scarborough" on Justia Law

Clarence Bonds, serving a 71-month sentence for transporting a firearm in interstate commerce as a felon, sought a reduced sentence based on Amendment 821 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. This amendment, which applies retroactively, reduced Bonds's criminal history category from IV to III, thereby lowering his advisory Guidelines range from 57–71 months to 46–57 months. Bonds requested the district court to reduce his sentence accordingly. The district court acknowledged the amendment's impact but declined to reduce his sentence, citing the need for deterrence, incapacitation, public protection, and Bonds's extensive criminal history, which included numerous violent crimes with firearms.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied Bonds's motion for a sentence reduction. The court recognized the amendment's effect on Bonds's criminal history category and advisory range but exercised its discretion to maintain the original sentence. The court emphasized Bonds's long criminal history and the serious nature of his offenses as reasons for not reducing the sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying Bonds's motion for a sentence reduction. The appellate court agreed that the district court had adequately considered the relevant factors under 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and provided a sufficient explanation for its decision. Additionally, the appellate court addressed whether the Criminal Justice Act authorized the appointment of appellate counsel for Bonds in his effort to challenge the district court's ruling. The panel was divided on this issue, with each judge providing a separate opinion. Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Bonds's motion on the merits. View "United States v. Bonds" on Justia Law