Commercial Law - Justia Case Law Summaries

MULTIPLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. CASDEN

2026-07-30T08:01:22-08:00

Two competing companies in the athleticwear market, both producing bioceramic materials embedded in textiles, became involved in litigation over allegedly false advertising. One company, after settling the initial lawsuit by agreeing to pay $2.5 million and refrain from claiming FDA approval or health benefits for its product, filed for bankruptcy before completing the settlement payments. The plaintiff then brought a new action against the CEO of the defendant company, alleging both tortious interference with the settlement agreement and false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, asserting that the defendant continued to falsely represent the product's health benefits and FDA approval. The United States District Court for the Central District of California presided over a jury trial. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on the Lanham Act claim and awarded nominal damages. On post-trial motions, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the plaintiff on the tortious interference claim, awarded $2.5 million in damages, and further awarded the plaintiff disgorgement of the CEO’s salary (trebled) as "profits" under the Lanham Act, in addition to nearly $600,000 in attorneys’ fees. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit held that, under California law, a corporate officer acting within the scope of agency and not at the expense of the corporation is immune from tortious interference claims, and reversed the district court’s denial of immunity and its tortious interference damages award. The court also reversed the district court’s disgorgement award, concluding that the CEO’s salary was not equivalent to profits under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the case was “exceptional.” The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "MULTIPLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. CASDEN" on Justia Law

Yousefzadeh v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

2026-07-30T06:30:03-08:00

Buyers of over-the-counter nasal decongestants containing oral phenylephrine brought numerous class actions against drug manufacturers and retailers, alleging that for years these companies sold and advertised decongestant products they knew to be ineffective. The plaintiffs claimed that scientific studies, particularly since 2016, had shown oral phenylephrine to be no better than a placebo at relieving congestion, yet the companies continued to market their products as effective decongestants and complied with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements. The FDA, despite mounting evidence, did not remove oral phenylephrine’s designation as an effective decongestant under its regulations. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated nearly one hundred class actions and transferred them to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting New York statutory and common-law claims as well as a federal RICO claim. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) expressly preempted the state law claims because the drugs’ labels complied with FDA requirements, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the RICO claim. The court also dismissed a Lanham Act claim brought by one pharmacy plaintiff. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the FDCA expressly preempts most of the state law claims because the federal regime requires manufacturers to follow the FDA-approved labeling, but it vacated the dismissal for claims regarding “Maximum Strength” labeling and brand-name drugs approved via the New Drug Application process, remanding those for further proceedings. The court affirmed dismissal of the RICO claim, adopting the indirect purchaser rule, and upheld denial of the pharmacy’s motion for reconsideration regarding its Lanham Act claim. View "Yousefzadeh v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc." on Justia Law

Fairholme Funds, Inc v. FHFA

2026-07-24T08:02:47-08:00

In the aftermath of the 2008 housing crisis, Congress created the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and authorized it to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. The FHFA and the U.S. Treasury entered into agreements whereby the Treasury would provide capital to these companies, initially in exchange for fixed-rate dividends. In 2012, these agreements were amended so that Fannie and Freddie were required to pay the Treasury dividends equal to their net worth above a specified reserve, a change known as the “Net Worth Sweep.” The announcement of this amendment caused the value of Fannie and Freddie shares to drop significantly, and shareholders, including those holding both common and junior preferred shares, filed suit alleging various statutory and contract violations. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed most claims, but after appellate review and remand, permitted the shareholders’ implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim to proceed to trial. The jury found the FHFA had violated this implied covenant by adopting the Net Worth Sweep, awarding over $612 million in damages, which the district court increased to $812 million with prejudgment interest. The district court denied the FHFA’s post-trial motions and rejected shareholders’ attempts to seek restitution or reliance damages beyond expectation damages. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the implied covenant claim was not foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent or by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, that the claim was available against the FHFA as conservator, and that the Net Worth Sweep violated the reasonable expectations of shareholders. The court also determined that post-Net Worth Sweep purchasers of shares could pursue the claim, and that the denial of restitution and reliance damages was proper. Accordingly, the award of expectation damages was affirmed. View "Fairholme Funds, Inc v. FHFA" on Justia Law

Tennenbaum Living Tr. v. GCDI S.A.

2026-07-20T06:00:03-08:00

In this dispute, an Argentine construction company issued dollar-denominated convertible debt notes to two trusts as part of a capital-raising effort. The parties entered into an indenture agreement, later amended in December 2019, which authorized the company’s Board of Directors to convert the notes into equity if certain financial thresholds were met. Section 1301 of the indenture vested the Board with authority to determine if these conditions were satisfied, provided their determination was free from “manifest error.” In 2020, the Board concluded that the threshold for conversion had been reached, relying on the company’s increased net equity following the issuance of new preferred shares. The trusts disagreed, contending the Board’s calculation was manifestly erroneous and that the actual value of equity sold did not meet the $100 million threshold required by the indenture. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over a bench trial. The court dismissed the trusts’ claims regarding improper amendment and bad faith, focusing solely on the manifest error claim. After reviewing the evidence, the District Court concluded that the Board had manifestly erred by using metrics not contemplated by the indenture—specifically, shareholder equity changes and liquidation preferences—rather than the actual value of shares sold. The court found that the threshold for mandatory conversion had not been met, and GCDI breached the agreement by ceasing interest payments on the notes. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the Board’s determination constituted a manifest error under New York law because it failed to value the equity sold as required by the indenture’s plain terms. The judgment awarding damages to the trusts was affirmed. View "Tennenbaum Living Tr. v. GCDI S.A." on Justia Law

Rhode Island Truck Ctr., LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC

2026-07-17T08:30:02-08:00

A truck dealership and a manufacturer entered into a contract permitting the dealership to sell and service the manufacturer’s trucks in specified regions, with the manufacturer holding the right to appoint additional dealers in those regions at its sole discretion when it determined such appointments were warranted. The manufacturer appointed a new dealer within the dealership’s area, citing customer support needs and concerns about the dealership’s performance. Internal documents revealed the manufacturer had a plan to consolidate its dealer network for efficiency and improved sales, and had previously denied the dealership’s request to expand its franchise. Despite the appointment of the new dealer, the original dealership retained its nonexclusive right to sell trucks in its area. Prior to the current suit, the dealership protested before the Rhode Island Dealer Board, alleging statutory notice failures and bad faith denial of expansion, but the Board dismissed the protest as extraterritorial application of Rhode Island law. The dealership sought reversal in Rhode Island Superior Court, and the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which granted summary judgment to the manufacturer. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment on certain claims and certified a question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which clarified statutory interpretation. Based on that, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the statutory-notice claim. Upon de novo review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the manufacturer acted within its contractual discretion in appointing a new dealer, as the contract only required the manufacturer to have a reason related to its business objectives, not to market conditions. The court also held there was no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as the manufacturer’s actions were consistent with the contract’s objectives. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer. View "Rhode Island Truck Ctr., LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC" on Justia Law

Patterson v. Cannon,

2026-07-01T06:03:27-08:00

A founder of a Delaware start-up, after personally paying a consultant for services due to lack of company funds, negotiated with the consultant to resolve claims for unpaid fees. The consultant agreed to accept a reduced cash payment and a warrant entitling her to purchase one percent of the company's common stock, with the percentage measured at the time of exercise. The founder, acting as CEO, executed this warrant, though he had not fully read the revised terms provided by the consultant’s lawyer. Later, when the consultant needed funds for a personal legal issue, the founder loaned her $20,000, secured by her only company warrant. The security agreement described the collateral as "a warrant to purchase Common Stock...for one million shares," even though the warrant was in fact for a percentage, not a fixed number of shares. When the loan matured and the consultant defaulted, the founder caused the warrant to be transferred into his name without the consultant’s notice, and later partially exercised it. Following a merger, the founder converted some of the resulting shares and retained the rest, selling them after a lock-up period for significant proceeds. The consultant disputed the validity of the transfer and exercise, arguing that the collateral description in the pledge agreement was insufficient and that the founder’s actions constituted conversion. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware held the warrant was valid and enforceable as a contract for one percent of the company’s stock at exercise, but found the collateral description insufficient under the Delaware UCC, ruling that no security interest attached and the founder’s actions constituted conversion, resulting in a large damages award. The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed that the warrant was valid and enforceable, but reversed the finding that no security interest attached. The Court held that, despite the inaccurate description of "one million shares," the security agreement reasonably identified the collateral because the consultant had only one such warrant, satisfying the UCC’s requirements. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Patterson v. Cannon," on Justia Law

CHAMPION FOOD SERVICE, INC. v. PROALAMO FOODS, L.L.C.

2026-06-19T06:17:11-08:00

A commercial meat supplier delivered frozen meat products to a distributor over a series of transactions, each accompanied by an invoice. The distributor did not pay all of the invoices, claiming that some of the meat was spoiled, while the supplier insisted that the distributor simply failed to pay what was owed and invented the spoiled-meat justification later. The supplier sued for breach of contract and, alternatively, for quantum meruit (an equitable claim for the value of goods or services provided), seeking payment for the unpaid invoices. The distributor counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging damages from the spoiled meat. At trial in a Texas district court, the jury was asked whether the distributor failed to comply with the agreements to pay for the meat and answered no. However, the jury found in favor of the supplier on its quantum meruit claim and awarded damages. The jury found that a reasonable attorney’s fee for the supplier’s attorneys was $0. The trial court entered judgment for the supplier on the quantum meruit claim and awarded the supplier its requested attorney’s fees, disregarding the jury’s finding. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on both quantum meruit and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court of Texas concluded that the supplier’s provision of meat was covered by express agreements between the parties and, as a matter of law, quantum meruit recovery is barred when a valid contract governs the subject matter. Because the supplier was not entitled to recover in quantum meruit, it also could not recover attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the relevant portions of the court of appeals’ judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of the distributor. View "CHAMPION FOOD SERVICE, INC. v. PROALAMO FOODS, L.L.C." on Justia Law

111 W. 57th Inv. LLC v 111 W57 Mezz Inv. LLC

2026-05-28T08:08:22-08:00

A major equity investor contributed $65 million to a joint venture formed to acquire and develop a luxury residential tower in New York City. The project was financed with significant loans, including a $325 million mezzanine loan from Apollo entities. After construction cost overruns put the mezzanine loan in default, Apollo and the joint venture entered a forbearance agreement splitting the loan and securing a portion with the joint venture’s equity. Apollo later assigned the junior mezzanine loan to Spruce Capital Partners, which then initiated a strict foreclosure under the Uniform Commercial Code. This process extinguished the joint venture’s equity—including the plaintiff’s investment—while allegedly allowing the project sponsor to retain a role and equity interest. The investor claimed that Apollo, Spruce, and the sponsor colluded to cut it out of the project’s value through assignment and foreclosure. The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the investor’s breach of implied covenant claim against Spruce but allowed the claim against Apollo to proceed, while dismissing tortious interference claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed in part by dismissing the implied covenant claim against Apollo, holding that Apollo’s sole discretion to assign the loan foreclosed such a claim, and otherwise affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference claims. The New York Court of Appeals held that a party’s sole discretion to assign a loan does not exempt it from the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Court concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that Apollo may have exercised its assignment right as part of a bad faith scheme to deprive the investor of the benefit of its bargain, reviving the implied covenant claim against Apollo. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference claims for insufficient pleading. The case was remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the implied covenant claim. View "111 W. 57th Inv. LLC v 111 W57 Mezz Inv. LLC" on Justia Law

American Exch. Bank v. Topp

2026-05-15T05:05:42-08:00

This case involves two individuals who guaranteed loans for their business by executing promissory notes and trust deeds, which conveyed several real properties as security to a bank. After the business defaulted on the loans and entered bankruptcy, the bank sold both the business and the individuals’ properties through judicial foreclosure and trustee sales. The bank subsequently sought a deficiency judgment against the guarantors for the remaining debt, asserting that they owed over $3 million, while the guarantors argued that they should receive credit for the fair market value of the properties sold, in accordance with Nebraska’s antideficiency statute. The District Court for Johnson County granted summary judgment to the bank, finding the guarantors liable under their guarantees without credit for the property values. The court relied on a waiver provision in the guarantees, which stated that the guarantors waived any defense based on the bank not obtaining the fair market value of the collateral. The court also denied the guarantors’ motion for reconsideration or new trial, prompting the guarantors to appeal. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. It held that the antideficiency statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1013, applies not only to borrowers but also to guarantors when their obligation is secured by a trust deed and a trustee sale occurs. The court determined that the waiver provision in the guarantees was unenforceable as a matter of public policy, given the legislative mandate of § 76-1013. Furthermore, the court found that evidence such as assessed values and appraisals raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the fair market value of the properties at the time of the trustee sales. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "American Exch. Bank v. Topp" on Justia Law

Block v. Canepa

2026-05-06T12:00:34-08:00

An Ohio resident and an Illinois wine retailer challenged two Ohio laws regarding wine importation. The first law prohibits out-of-state retailers from shipping wine directly to Ohio consumers, while permitting in-state retailers to do so. The second law bars Ohio residents from personally bringing more than six bottles of wine purchased outside Ohio into the state within any thirty-day period, though it allows up to 288 bottles if purchased inside Ohio. The plaintiffs argued that both laws discriminate against out-of-state businesses and consumers, violating the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. That court found the shipping restriction constitutional under the Twenty-first Amendment and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the transportation limit. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, clarifying that the appropriate test comes from Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, after additional discovery, the district court again granted summary judgment to the defendants, evaluating the restrictions as part of Ohio’s three-tier alcohol regulatory system and finding the restrictions justified. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs had standing. The court found that the challenged restrictions were not essential components of Ohio’s three-tier system and must be evaluated independently under the Tennessee Wine test. The court concluded that Ohio’s justifications for the restrictions—public health, safety, price control, and temperance—were speculative or undermined by evidence that Ohio allows similar activities by other out-of-state entities. The court held that both laws are unconstitutional because their predominant effect is economic protectionism, not the protection of public health or safety. The district court’s judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Block v. Canepa" on Justia Law

Connex Credit Union v. Madgic

2026-04-29T03:08:49-08:00

The case involves a dispute between a credit union and borrowers who defaulted on a retail installment contract for a vehicle. After the borrowers defaulted, the credit union repossessed and sold the vehicle, then sued the borrowers for the remaining balance. The borrowers responded with a counterclaim alleging that the credit union failed to provide proper notice before and after repossession and sale, in violation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9 and the Retail Installment Sales Financing Act (RISFA). The borrowers sought statutory damages under both statutes and also moved to certify their counterclaim as a class action. The Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, granted summary judgment to the credit union on the borrowers’ counterclaim, reasoning that both the UCC and RISFA claims were subject to the one-year statute of limitations for penal statutes found in Connecticut General Statutes § 52-585. The court found the claims time-barred because they were filed more than one year after the alleged violations. Based on this conclusion, the court also denied the borrowers’ motion for class certification. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Connecticut concluded that the trial court applied the wrong statute of limitations. The Supreme Court held that both the UCC Article 9 and RISFA provisions at issue are remedial, not penal, and are thus not governed by the one-year limitation for penal statutes. Instead, it determined that the three-year statute of limitations for tort actions under § 52-577 applies, because the borrowers’ counterclaims arose from statutory violations rather than breach of contract. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to apply the three-year limitation and reconsider class certification. View "Connex Credit Union v. Madgic" on Justia Law

CMT Highway, LLC v. Logan Contractors Supply, Inc.

2026-04-24T06:06:16-08:00

A manufacturer of specialized products for road construction and a supplier had a longstanding business relationship, with the supplier relying heavily on the manufacturer’s goods for government paving projects. In 2021, the manufacturer faced supply chain disruptions and increased material costs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to missed deliveries and eventually an ultimatum: the supplier must accept significant price increases on existing contracts or the business relationship would end. The supplier rejected the increases, deemed the manufacturer in breach, and procured substitute products from other vendors at prevailing market rates, which were significantly higher than the manufacturer’s proposed increased prices. The Iowa District Court for Cedar County held a bench trial, finding that contracts existed and were breached by the manufacturer when it refused to honor the original prices. The court awarded damages to both parties for breaches but offset the sums, ultimately finding the supplier’s cover purchases reasonable under the circumstances. Both parties appealed. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s findings regarding contract formation, breach, and damages, including the reasonableness of the supplier’s cover purchases, but remanded for correction of prejudgment interest calculations. The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed only the question of whether the supplier’s procurement of substitute goods constituted reasonable “cover” under Iowa Code section 554.2712, given the manufacturer’s post-breach offer to fill the orders at a higher price. The court held that a buyer is not obligated to accept a breaching seller’s new terms to mitigate damages and that “cover” does not require dealing with the breaching seller. Substantial evidence supported the lower court’s finding that the supplier’s cover purchases were reasonable, even though they cost more than the manufacturer’s increased prices. The district court’s judgment was affirmed in relevant part, except regarding double prejudgment interest, which was remanded for correction. View "CMT Highway, LLC v. Logan Contractors Supply, Inc." on Justia Law

Jet Midwest International Co., Ltd v. Ohadi

2026-04-02T07:30:56-08:00

After Jet Midwest International Co., Ltd. made a $6.5 million loan to Jet Midwest Group, LLC (JMG) for the purchase of a Boeing 737-700, JMG defaulted on repayment. Jet Midwest sued for breach of contract, and when it could not collect on its judgment due to JMG’s lack of funds, Jet Midwest brought claims under the Missouri Fraudulent Transfer Act against several individuals and entities (the Ohadi/Woolley defendants), alleging the improper transfer of assets to avoid payment. Following a bench trial, Jet Midwest prevailed on its claims, and the district court awarded money damages, interest, and set a schedule for further motions on attorney’s fees and costs. Previously, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri awarded Jet Midwest over $6.5 million in attorney’s fees and costs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated this award, finding the district court had not properly performed a lodestar calculation for attorney’s fees and had not analyzed which costs were recoverable under federal law. On remand, Jet Midwest reduced its fee request but sought a multiplier; the district court ultimately awarded $5.8 million in attorney’s fees, granted prejudgment interest at 14 percent, and included expert witness fees and other litigation costs. Both sides appealed aspects of this award. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly calculated and awarded $5.8 million in attorney’s fees but erred in awarding expert witness fees as part of attorney’s fees, as Jet Midwest failed to provide sufficient evidence that such fees were recoverable under the relevant standards. The Eighth Circuit also held that the district court erred in applying a 14 percent prejudgment interest rate and ordered that Missouri’s statutory rate of nine percent should apply. Additionally, the court clarified that, after August 6, 2020, the federal postjudgment interest rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) governs. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. View "Jet Midwest International Co., Ltd v. Ohadi" on Justia Law

NVLSP v. US

2026-03-20T06:32:50-08:00

Three nonprofit organizations filed a nationwide class action against the United States, alleging that the federal judiciary overcharged the public for access to court records through the PACER system. They claimed the government used PACER fees not only to fund the system itself but also for unrelated expenses, contrary to the statutory limits set by the E-Government Act. The plaintiffs sought refunds for allegedly excessive fees collected between 2010 and 2018. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia oversaw extensive litigation, including class certification and an interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously affirmed that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act and that the government had used PACER fees for unauthorized expenses. After remand, the parties reached a settlement totaling $125 million. The district court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also approved attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, and incentive awards to the class representatives. An objector, Eric Isaacson, challenged the district court’s jurisdiction, the fairness of the settlement, the attorneys’ fees, and the incentive awards. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act because each PACER transaction constituted a separate claim, none exceeding the $10,000 jurisdictional limit. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in approving the class settlement, the attorneys’ fees, or the incentive awards. The court also held that incentive awards are not categorically prohibited and are permissible if reasonable, joining the majority of federal circuits on this issue. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "NVLSP v. US " on Justia Law

GuangDong Midea v. Unsecured Creditors

2026-03-18T15:30:29-08:00

Corelle, a company that sold Instapot multifunction cookers, entered into a 2016 master supply agreement (MSA) with Midea, the manufacturer. Under this arrangement, individual purchase orders (POs) were used for each transaction, detailing specific terms such as price and quantity. Each PO typically included Corelle’s own terms, including indemnity provisions. In 2023, Corelle filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, as part of its reorganization plan, sold its appliances business and assigned the MSA to the buyer. However, Corelle sought to retain its indemnification rights for products purchased under completed POs made before the assignment. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Midea’s objection to this arrangement, finding that the POs were severable contracts distinct from the MSA. This meant the indemnification rights related to completed POs remained with Corelle. Midea appealed, contending that the MSA and all related POs formed a single, indivisible contract that should have been assigned in its entirety. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, emphasizing that the structure of the MSA and the parties’ course of dealing supported the divisibility of the POs from the MSA. On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the standards applied by the lower courts, the interpretation of the contracts, and the application of 11 U.S.C. § 365(f). The appellate court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding the POs were divisible from the MSA, that Corelle’s retention of indemnification rights did not violate bankruptcy law, and that the lower courts applied the correct standards of review. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "GuangDong Midea v. Unsecured Creditors" on Justia Law

Adams v. ANB Bank

2026-03-06T08:14:25-08:00

The dispute centers on a series of complex financial transactions involving a Wyoming family and their businesses, a local bank, and a commercial lender. The plaintiffs, including a married couple and their closely held LLC, entered into various loans and mortgages related to their commercial property and business operations. When financial difficulties arose—exacerbated by a downturn in the oil and gas industry—the parties restructured their debt, resulting in a 2017 mortgage and, after the operating company filed for bankruptcy, a 2019 settlement agreement. The plaintiffs later alleged that the bank and lender’s actions and omissions caused them to lose equity in both their home and commercial property, and the defendants counterclaimed for breach of the settlement agreement and sought attorney fees. The District Court of Natrona County dismissed or granted summary judgment for the bank and lender on all claims and counterclaims, finding the mortgage unambiguously secured two loans and the bank had no duty to release it after only one was repaid. It also concluded the plaintiffs could not establish justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentations, interpreted the settlement agreement as permitting (but not requiring) the lender to record the quitclaim deed after a sale period, and found no breach by the lender. The district court further ruled the plaintiffs breached the agreement by filing suit, thus entitling the bank and lender to attorney fees. On review, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decisions dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, holding the mortgage secured both loans and the bank acted within its rights. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the grant of summary judgment to the bank and lender on their counterclaims, finding that filing the lawsuit was not a breach of the settlement agreement or its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Consequently, the award of attorney fees and costs to the bank and lender was also reversed. View "Adams v. ANB Bank" on Justia Law

Anadarko v. Alternative Environmental Solutions

2026-03-03T11:02:51-08:00

An environmental remediation company and an oil corporation entered into a Master Services Contract in 2008, which included a Texas choice-of-law and venue provision and an indemnification clause requiring the remediation company to defend and indemnify the oil corporation for claims arising from violations of applicable laws. In 2012, it was discovered that the remediation company’s then-president, along with subcontractors, had engaged in fraudulent overbilling for work performed for the oil corporation. Upon discovery, ownership of the remediation company changed hands, and litigation ensued in Louisiana state court. The remediation company’s new owner alleged that the oil corporation’s employee was complicit in the fraud, making the corporation vicariously liable. The oil corporation then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment that the remediation company had a duty to defend and indemnify it in the Louisiana litigation, and also sought attorney’s fees as damages for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment for the oil corporation, holding that Texas law applied, the remediation company owed both a duty to defend and to indemnify, and awarding attorney’s fees for both the Texas and Louisiana lawsuits. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo regarding summary judgment and attorney’s fees. The appellate court held that Texas law governed under the contract’s choice-of-law clause since Louisiana did not have a more significant relationship or materially greater interest, and applying Texas law did not contravene Louisiana public policy. The indemnity provision was not void as against public policy or for illegality. The court affirmed the duty to defend and to indemnify, but vacated the judgment to the extent it would require indemnification for punitive and exemplary damages, and remanded for modification. It also vacated attorney’s fees awarded for the underlying Louisiana litigation, affirming only those fees related to the declaratory judgment action. View "Anadarko v. Alternative Environmental Solutions" on Justia Law

Bobcat of Mandan v. Doosan Bobcat North America

2026-02-26T08:46:35-08:00

A long-time authorized equipment dealer, operating under two dealer sales agreements with a manufacturer, received notice in September 2024 that its agreements would be terminated in ninety days. The manufacturer cited alleged false and misleading statements, including altered business records, as grounds for termination under the agreements. The dealer responded by challenging the termination in court, invoking North Dakota statutes that regulate equipment dealer terminations and asserting that the filing of its action triggered an automatic stay against termination during litigation. The District Court of Morton County was asked by the manufacturer to dissolve or modify the automatic stay, arguing that the statutory stay only applied to certain products and not to the bulk of equipment covered by the agreements. The manufacturer presented evidence and legislative history to support its position. However, the district court denied the motion, holding that the statute mandates a procedural automatic stay upon the filing of the dealer’s action, and that the court lacked authority to dissolve or modify the stay at this stage. The court deferred any determination of which products were covered by which statute to later proceedings. The manufacturer then sought appellate review, but the district court did not rule on its request for certification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) due to the pending appeal. The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed whether it had jurisdiction over the appeal. The court concluded that, although the automatic stay functioned as a statutory temporary injunction making the order appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(3), the absence of Rule 54(b) certification rendered the order not appealable at this stage. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and, finding no extraordinary circumstances or public interest, declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. View "Bobcat of Mandan v. Doosan Bobcat North America" on Justia Law

Eaton Corp. v. Angstrom Auto. Group, LLC

2026-02-13T11:31:22-08:00

A global manufacturer of automotive clutches entered into a contract with a components manufacturer to supply levers for use in the clutches. The levers were to be manufactured strictly according to the specifications provided, with no design responsibility on the supplier. Between 2017 and 2018, several of the supplied levers broke, causing clutch failures in the field. The buyer communicated with the supplier about these issues through emails, reports, and meetings, and the parties disputed whether these communications constituted notice of breach. The buyer eventually filed suit for breach of contract and breach of express and implied warranties. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the supplier’s motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, holding that there were sufficient allegations and factual disputes regarding whether the buyer had given adequate notice of breach as required under Ohio law. The case proceeded to trial, where the jury found in favor of the buyer on all claims and awarded significant damages. The supplier appealed, arguing that the Ohio statute requiring pre-suit notice of breach barred the buyer’s claims, and that errors in witness testimony and jury instructions warranted a new trial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that under Ohio Revised Code § 1302.65(C)(1), interpreted through Ohio Supreme Court precedent, notice of breach does not require explicit language alleging breach, but rather communication sufficient to alert the seller that there is a problem. The court found the evidence supported the jury’s verdict, the jury instructions properly reflected Ohio law, and there was no reversible error in the admission of witness testimony. The judgment in favor of the buyer was affirmed. View "Eaton Corp. v. Angstrom Auto. Group, LLC" on Justia Law

EFS Inc. v. Lee

2026-01-30T08:00:51-08:00

Murray and Kimberly Lee hired Debra Champion to clean their home, with Champion’s son, Alex Brandon Burkett, sometimes assisting. Over time, the Lees noticed cash, prescription medication, foreign currency, silverware, and jewelry missing from their house. After suspecting Champion, they continued to employ her due to her plausible explanations. Eventually, after another acquaintance reported missing property following Champion’s cleaning, the Lees discovered their Gorham silverware gone and filed a police report. Detective Sergeant Richard Pollard investigated and identified Burkett as a suspect. LeadsOnline records indicated Burkett conducted numerous transactions with EFS, Inc., d/b/a Quik Pawn Shop ("Quik Pawn"), selling silverware and jewelry believed to be the Lees’ property. The Lees were unable to recover their stolen items. The Lees sued Quik Pawn in the Jefferson Circuit Court, alleging negligence, wantonness, and civil conspiracy, later dismissing most claims except wantonness. Quik Pawn moved for summary judgment, which was granted for conspiracy and emotional distress, but denied for wantonness. Quik Pawn’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the value of stolen items was granted. At trial, the jury found for the Lees on the wantonness claim and awarded $250,000 in punitive damages. Quik Pawn’s postjudgment motions were denied by operation of law. Quik Pawn appealed, and the Lees cross-appealed the exclusion of valuation evidence. The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It held that the Lees failed to present substantial evidence that Quik Pawn’s acts or omissions proximately caused their loss, as the property had been sold long before the Lees discovered the theft or reported it. The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment for Quik Pawn, finding the cross-appeal moot due to this disposition. View "EFS Inc. v. Lee" on Justia Law

Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System v. Sanford

2026-01-16T12:33:54-08:00

A cloud-based real estate services company faced persistent and grave allegations that two top agents, along with several others, drugged and sexually assaulted company agents at events. Reports began surfacing in 2020, including a viral social media post and a memo sent to company executives detailing numerous incidents. Despite these warnings, the board initially terminated one perpetrator but continued paying him, and allowed others implicated to continue working. A whistleblower director raised these issues repeatedly at board meetings and with outside counsel, but the board’s responses were limited to internal investigations led by insiders and did not result in meaningful change. The company only took further action after survivors filed federal anti-trafficking lawsuits in 2023 and the story became public. Prior to the current litigation, federal courts sustained anti-trafficking claims against the company and its leadership, finding sufficient allegations that the leadership benefited from retaining perpetrators due to the company’s revenue-sharing structure. The defendants in this derivative action are not accused of direct misconduct, but of harming the company by allowing and covering up systemic sexual abuse. The plaintiff, a shareholder, alleges the board and certain officers actively covered up abuse and breached their fiduciary duties, and that some board members failed their oversight obligations in the face of numerous red flags. The Delaware Court of Chancery reviewed the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It held that workplace sexual misconduct can constitute a corporate trauma supporting a breach of fiduciary duty claim under Delaware law. The court denied dismissal as to claims against the officer alleged to have benefited from covering up abuse, and against the directors for failing to respond in good faith to clear red flags. However, it granted dismissal of a novel claim seeking to extend oversight duties to a control group of shareholders, declining to make new law in that area. View "Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System v. Sanford" on Justia Law

INSINKERATOR, LLC V. JONECA COMPANY, LLC

2025-12-29T10:02:19-08:00

Joneca Company, LLC, and InSinkErator, LLC, are direct competitors in the garbage disposal market. InSinkErator alleged that Joneca marketed its disposals using horsepower designations that misrepresented the actual output power of the motors, thereby misleading consumers. InSinkErator claimed that industry and consumer standards understood horsepower to refer to the motor’s mechanical output, not merely the electrical input, and that Joneca’s advertising was causing it to lose sales and goodwill. InSinkErator tested Joneca’s products and found the output horsepower to be substantially less than advertised, prompting it to seek injunctive relief. The United States District Court for the Central District of California reviewed these allegations in the context of a motion for a preliminary injunction. After considering expert declarations and industry standards, the district court found that Joneca’s horsepower claims were literally false by necessary implication, as consumers would interpret horsepower designations as referring to output. The court also found that these claims were material to consumer purchasing decisions and that InSinkErator was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. As a result, the court ordered Joneca to place disclaimers on its packaging and sales materials and required InSinkErator to post a $500,000 bond. Joneca appealed, challenging the district court’s findings on falsity, materiality, irreparable harm, balancing of hardships, and public interest. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that InSinkErator was likely to succeed on the merits of its Lanham Act false advertising claim, that Joneca’s horsepower claims were materially misleading, and that InSinkErator faced irreparable harm. The Ninth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s balancing of equities, bond requirement, or determination that the injunction served the public interest. View "INSINKERATOR, LLC V. JONECA COMPANY, LLC" on Justia Law

The County Federal Credit Union v. Madore

2025-11-25T08:20:12-08:00

Edward Richard obtained a loan from The County Federal Credit Union to purchase a 2022 Ski-Doo Expedition snowmobile. The credit union took a security interest in the snowmobile and filed a UCC1 Financing Statement with the Maine Secretary of State. Over a year later, Richard sold the snowmobile to Michael Madore Jr., who purchased it as a gift for his father, Michael Madore. Richard did not inform the credit union of the sale and assured Madore Jr. that no liens existed. The Madores did not investigate for liens or UCC filings. After Richard defaulted on the loan and failed to cure, the credit union discovered that Madore possessed the snowmobile. The County Federal Credit Union filed a complaint for recovery of personal property in the District Court (Fort Kent, Maine), naming both Richard and Madore as defendants. Richard declared bankruptcy and received a discharge. Following a hearing, the District Court entered judgment for the credit union, ordering Madore to surrender the snowmobile. Madore then requested additional findings, which the court provided, and subsequently appealed. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the appeal. It held that the credit union had a valid security interest in the snowmobile because the signed loan documents met the statutory requirements: they were authenticated by Richard, created a security interest, and described the collateral. The Court rejected Madore’s argument that the absence of Richard’s signature on a separate “Security Agreement” page rendered the security interest unenforceable. Additionally, the Court found that Madore could not claim status as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under 11 M.R.S. § 9-1320(2), because the credit union had filed its financing statement before the sale. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "The County Federal Credit Union v. Madore" on Justia Law

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Quinn

2025-11-07T07:47:50-08:00

In this case, the plaintiff bank sought to foreclose on a residential property in Vermont after the defendant defaulted on a $365,000 loan originally issued by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. The mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff, and the bank alleged it was the holder of the note. However, the copy of the note attached to the complaint was made out to the original lender and lacked any indorsement. Over the years, the case was delayed by mediation, bankruptcy, and various motions. At trial, the plaintiff produced the original note with an undated indorsement in blank, but could not establish when it became the holder of the note. The Vermont Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division, denied the plaintiff’s initial summary judgment motion, finding that the plaintiff had not established standing under the Uniform Commercial Code. A later summary judgment was vacated due to procedural errors. After a hearing, the court found the plaintiff was currently a holder of the note and that the defendant had defaulted, but concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove it had the right to enforce the note at the time the complaint was filed, as required by U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Kimball. Judgment was entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff’s post-judgment motion to designate the judgment as without prejudice was denied. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that a foreclosure plaintiff must demonstrate standing by showing it had the right to enforce the note at the time the complaint was filed, declining to overrule or limit Kimball. The Court also declined to address whether the judgment should be designated as without prejudice, leaving preclusion consequences to future proceedings. View "The Bank of New York Mellon v. Quinn" on Justia Law

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Capital Credit Union

2025-10-20T07:30:23-08:00

Pro-Mark Services, Inc., a general contracting construction company, obtained payment and performance bonds from Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company as required by the Miller Act. To facilitate this, Pro-Mark and other indemnitors entered into a General Indemnity Agreement (GIA) with Hartford, assigning certain rights related to bonded contracts. Later, Pro-Mark entered into two substantial business loan agreements with Capital Credit Union (CCU), secured by most of Pro-Mark’s assets, including deposit accounts. Recognizing potential conflicts over asset priorities, Hartford and CCU executed an Intercreditor Collateral Agreement (ICA) to define their respective rights and priorities in Pro-Mark’s assets, distinguishing between “Bank Priority Collateral” and “Surety Priority Collateral,” and specifying how proceeds should be distributed. After Pro-Mark filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota, CCU placed an administrative freeze on Pro-Mark’s deposit accounts and moved for relief from the automatic stay to exercise its right of setoff against the funds in those accounts. Hartford objected, claiming a superior interest in the funds based on the GIA and ICA. The bankruptcy court held hearings and, after considering the parties’ briefs and stipulated facts, granted CCU’s motion, allowing it to set off the funds. The bankruptcy court found CCU had met its burden for setoff and determined Hartford did not have a sufficient interest in the deposited funds, focusing on the GIA and North Dakota’s Uniform Commercial Code, and not the ICA. On appeal, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit held that while the bankruptcy court had authority to adjudicate the priority dispute, it erred by failing to analyze the parties’ respective rights under the ICA, which governed the priority of distributions. The Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Capital Credit Union" on Justia Law

Palmer's Grocery Inc. v. Chandler's JKE, Inc.

2025-10-03T01:20:48-08:00

Two parties, both experienced in the grocery business, negotiated the sale of a grocery store’s inventory, stock, and equipment for $175,000. The agreement was reached orally and memorialized with a handshake, but no written contract was signed. Following the oral agreement, the buyers took control of the store, closed it for remodeling, met with employees, and were publicly identified as the new owners. However, within two weeks, the buyers withdrew from the deal, citing issues with a third-party wholesaler. The sellers, having already closed the store and lost perishable goods, were unable to find another buyer and subsequently filed suit. The sellers brought ten claims in the Lee County Circuit Court, including breach of contract, estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation. The buyers moved to dismiss, arguing that the Statute of Frauds barred enforcement of the oral agreement because the sale involved goods valued over $500 and no signed writing existed. The circuit court agreed, dismissing the contract and estoppel-based claims, as well as the negligent misrepresentation claim, but allowed other claims to proceed. The sellers appealed the dismissal of the contract and estoppel claims. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo. It held that the sellers’ complaint plausibly invoked two exceptions to the Statute of Frauds under Mississippi law: the merchants’ exception and the part-performance exception. The Court found that, at the motion to dismiss stage, it could not determine as a matter of law that no valid contract existed under these exceptions. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of claims (1) through (7) and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Palmer's Grocery Inc. v. Chandler's JKE, Inc." on Justia Law

Sonterra Cap. Master Fund, Ltd. v. UBS AG

2025-09-15T07:00:07-08:00

Several plaintiffs, including an individual, an investment fund, and a limited partnership, engaged in trading derivatives tied to the Sterling London Interbank Offered Rate (Sterling LIBOR). They alleged that a group of major banks conspired to manipulate Sterling LIBOR for their own trading advantage. The plaintiffs claimed that the banks coordinated false submissions to the rate-setting process, sometimes inflating and sometimes deflating the benchmark, which in turn affected the value of Sterling LIBOR-based derivatives. The plaintiffs asserted that this manipulation was orchestrated through internal and external communications among banks and with the help of inter-dealer brokers. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The district court found that two plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because they were not “efficient enforcers” and had not transacted directly with the defendants, resulting in only indirect and remote damages. The court also determined that the third plaintiff, a limited partnership, lacked the capacity to sue and had not properly assigned its claims to a substitute entity. Additionally, the court found that one plaintiff failed to adequately plead specific intent for the CEA claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, but on a narrower ground. The Second Circuit held that none of the plaintiffs plausibly alleged actual injury under either the Sherman Act or the CEA. The court explained that because the alleged manipulation was multidirectional—sometimes raising and sometimes lowering Sterling LIBOR—the plaintiffs did not show that they suffered net harm as a result of the defendants’ conduct. Without specific allegations of transactions where they were harmed by the manipulation, the plaintiffs’ claims could not proceed. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed, and the cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Sonterra Cap. Master Fund, Ltd. v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

Herbert v. Shield Arms

2025-09-09T14:38:59-08:00

Three individuals, including the appellant, formed a limited liability company (LLC) to design and sell firearms products, later adding two more members to a second LLC. The first LLC did not have a formal operating agreement, while the second adopted one in early 2019, setting a low company valuation. The appellant’s behavior became erratic and disruptive, leading to accusations against a key business partner and other members, which damaged business relationships and led to the loss of significant contracts. The remaining members of both LLCs unanimously voted to dissociate the appellant, citing his conduct as making it unlawful to continue business with him. The appellant disputed the validity of the operating agreement in the second LLC and challenged the valuation of his interests in both companies, also alleging wrongful dissociation, defamation, and conversion of property. The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The court found the appellant was properly dissociated from the first LLC under Montana’s Limited Liability Company Act due to the unanimous vote and the unlawfulness of continuing business with him. It also held that the second LLC’s operating agreement was valid and permitted dissociation by unanimous vote. The court valued the appellant’s interests according to the operating agreement for the second LLC and based on company assets for the first LLC. The court denied the appellant’s motion to extend expert disclosure deadlines and partially denied his motion to compel discovery. It also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the conversion claim, finding no evidence of unauthorized control over the appellant’s property. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court’s rulings on dissociation and valuation regarding the second LLC, as well as the summary judgment on the conversion claim. However, it reversed the valuation of the appellant’s interest in the first LLC, holding that the district court erred by failing to consider the company’s “going concern” value as required by statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Herbert v. Shield Arms" on Justia Law

Fire Protection v. Survitec Survival

2025-08-22T04:00:19-08:00

Fire Protection Service, Inc. (FPS), a Texas business, served as a non-exclusive dealer for Survitec Survival Products, Inc., which manufactures and distributes marine safety products, including life rafts. These life rafts, each valued at over $15,000 and capable of accommodating up to 30 people, are required by federal law and international treaties to be installed on various types of navigable vessels used in industries such as offshore oil and gas, commercial fishing, and maritime shipping. In August 2017, Survitec terminated its dealership agreement with FPS without citing cause and did not repurchase FPS’s unsold inventory. FPS filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging that Survitec’s actions violated the Texas Fair Practices of Equipment Manufacturers, Distributors, Wholesalers, and Dealers Act (“Dealer Act”). After a bench trial, the district court granted Survitec’s Rule 52(c) motion, ruling that the life rafts did not qualify as “Equipment” under the Act, and therefore the Act did not apply to the parties’ agreement. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that Survitec’s life rafts are “Equipment” under the Dealer Act because they are used “in connection with” commercial activities covered by the Act, including construction, maintenance, mining (which encompasses oil and gas extraction), and industrial activities. The court found that the Act’s language and legislative intent support a broad interpretation, and that the life rafts meet the statutory definition. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Fire Protection v. Survitec Survival" on Justia Law

Anderson Industries v. Thermal Intelligence

2025-08-14T08:08:59-08:00

A Canadian corporation specializing in industrial heaters sought a new supplier and entered negotiations with a South Dakota manufacturer to custom-build 30 heaters. The parties initially agreed to the purchase and sale of 21 units, with a 20% down payment, and later extended the agreement to include the remaining nine units, for a total of 30 heaters at a set price per unit. The manufacturer began production and delivery as payments were made. However, after partial delivery and payment, the buyer stopped making payments, citing performance issues with the heaters and ultimately notified the manufacturer of its intent to terminate the relationship. Despite complaints about the heaters, the buyer did not reject or return any units but continued to accept and sell them until the manufacturer withheld further shipments due to nonpayment. The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Day County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of a contract for 30 heaters and that the buyer breached the agreement by failing to pay and by terminating the contract. The court also found that the manufacturer had taken reasonable steps to mitigate damages and that the buyer had not properly rejected the goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case de novo. The Supreme Court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a contract for the sale of 30 heaters. However, the Court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the alleged defects in the heaters substantially impaired the value of the whole contract, which could excuse the buyer’s nonperformance under the UCC. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s finding of contract formation, reversed the grant of summary judgment on the breach issue, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Anderson Industries v. Thermal Intelligence" on Justia Law

HBKY, LLC v. Elk River Export, LLC

2025-08-05T12:30:20-08:00

Two companies, HBKY and Elk River, each claimed rights to thousands of acres of timber in Kentucky based on their respective contracts with a third party, Kingdom Energy Resources. Kingdom had entered into a timber sales contract with Elk River, allowing Elk River to cut and remove timber from certain land. Separately, Kingdom obtained a $22 million loan from a group of lenders, with HBKY acting as their agent, and mortgaged several properties—including the timber in question—as collateral for the loan. Kingdom later breached both agreements: it ousted Elk River from the land, violating the timber contract, and defaulted on the loan, leaving both HBKY and Elk River with competing claims to the timber. After HBKY secured a judgment in a New York federal court declaring Kingdom in default, it registered the judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and initiated foreclosure proceedings on the collateral, including the timber. Elk River and its president, Robin Wilson, were joined as defendants due to their claimed interest. The district court granted summary judgment to HBKY, finding that Elk River did not obtain title to the timber under its contracts, did not have a superior interest, and was not a buyer in the ordinary course of business under Kentucky law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the loan documents did not authorize a sale of the timber free of HBKY’s security interest, as the mortgage explicitly stated that the security interest would survive any sale. The court also found that Elk River failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish its status as a buyer in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of HBKY. View "HBKY, LLC v. Elk River Export, LLC" on Justia Law

Rhode Island Truck Center, LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC

2025-07-29T08:00:03-08:00

Rhode Island Truck Center, LLC (RITC) filed a protest against Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) for allegedly violating Rhode Island General Laws § 31-5.1-4.2(a). DTNA had granted a franchise to Advantage Truck Raynham, LLC (ATG Raynham) in Raynham, Massachusetts, which RITC claimed was within its "relevant market area" as defined in their franchise agreement. RITC argued that DTNA failed to provide the required statutory notice before establishing the new dealership. The Dealers' Hearing Board determined it lacked jurisdiction over RITC's protest, citing the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. RITC then filed an administrative appeal in the Superior Court, which DTNA removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The District Court concluded that the Dealer Law could not be applied extraterritorially without violating the Commerce Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified a question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court to determine whether a "relevant market area" under § 31-5.1-4.2(a) could extend beyond Rhode Island's borders. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the certified question de novo and concluded that the statute's plain language and legislative intent allowed a "relevant market area" to extend beyond state borders. The Court noted that the statute's definition of "relevant market area" includes a 20-mile radius or the area defined in the franchise agreement, whichever is greater, without limiting it to within Rhode Island. The Court emphasized that the legislature's intent was to provide dealers with a protective area that could extend beyond state lines, especially given Rhode Island's small geographic size. Thus, the Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, allowing the "relevant market area" to extend beyond Rhode Island's borders. View "Rhode Island Truck Center, LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC" on Justia Law

Goldenview Ready-Mix, LLC v. Grangaard Construction, Inc.

2025-07-24T07:18:28-08:00

Golden View Ready-Mix, LLC (Golden View) supplied concrete to Grangaard Construction, Inc. (Grangaard) for a bridge project. Golden View alleged that Grangaard failed to pay for the concrete, breached the implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing, and committed fraud. A jury found in favor of Golden View on the breach of contract and good faith claims, awarding damages and punitive damages, but found no liability for fraud. Grangaard appealed the punitive damages award and the decision to submit the fraud issue to the jury. The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, McCook County, South Dakota, presided over the case. Grangaard moved for partial summary judgment on the fraud claim, arguing there was no independent tort duty outside the contract. The court denied this motion, allowing the fraud claim to proceed. During the trial, the court permitted the jury to consider punitive damages based on the breach of the implied obligation of good faith, despite Grangaard's objections. The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court determined that punitive damages are only recoverable for breaches of obligations not arising from a contract, as per SDCL 21-3-2. The court found that the implied obligation of good faith arises from the contract itself and does not constitute an independent tort that could support punitive damages. Consequently, the court vacated the punitive damages award. However, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment in all other respects, concluding that the error regarding punitive damages did not affect the jury's decision on the breach of contract and good faith claims. View "Goldenview Ready-Mix, LLC v. Grangaard Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Comercial de Alimentos Sanchez

2025-07-24T07:00:09-08:00

A wholesale food supplier, Vista Food Exchange, Inc. ("Vista"), sued Comercial De Alimentos Sanchez S De R L De C.V. ("Sanchez") for breach of contract, alleging that Sanchez failed to pay for over $750,000 worth of meat products. Vista claimed that Sanchez was required to make payments to Vista's headquarters in New York, but Sanchez contended it had paid the invoices in cash to Vista's salesman, Eduardo Andujo Rascón, in Tijuana, Mexico. Sanchez supported its claim with declarations and documents, including an affidavit from Rascón stating he received the cash payments. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Sanchez, dismissing Vista's breach-of-contract claim. The court found that Sanchez provided unrefuted evidence of cash payments to Rascón, fulfilling its contractual obligations. It also ruled that even if paying Rascón in cash breached the contract, Vista could not show that its damages were proximately caused by the breach because Rascón's theft of the money was unforeseeable. The court dismissed Vista's other claims for breach of implied contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment, citing New York law that forecloses such claims when an enforceable contract exists. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding Sanchez's claimed performance, the modification of the contract, and the foreseeability of damages. The appellate court vacated the district court's judgment dismissing Vista's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and remanded the case for trial on those claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Vista's claims for implied contract and promissory estoppel. View "Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Comercial de Alimentos Sanchez" on Justia Law

City of Fort Collins v. Open International

2025-07-23T11:33:01-08:00

The City of Fort Collins contracted with Open International, LLC, for software services, which led to mutual breach-of-contract claims. The City also alleged that Open's precontractual statements were negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations. A jury found that Open fraudulently induced the City to enter the contract. The City elected to rescind the contract, and the district court held a bench trial on restitution, ordering a judgment of nearly $20 million against Open. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied Open's motions for judgment as a matter of law, which argued that the City’s tort claims were barred by the economic-loss rule and the contract’s merger clause. The court also denied Open's motion to require the City to elect a remedy before trial. The jury found in favor of the City on the fraudulent inducement claim, and the City chose rescission, leading to the dismissal of the jury and a bench trial on restitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings and the jury’s verdict. The court held that the City’s tort claims were not barred by the economic-loss rule or the contract’s merger clause. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of fraud, particularly regarding Open’s grading of the functionality matrix and the use of a different software portal. The court also upheld the finding that the City did not waive its right to rescind the contract, as there was conflicting evidence about when the City discovered the fraud. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Open’s Rule 50(b) motion, which argued that Open Investments could not be liable for rescission. View "City of Fort Collins v. Open International" on Justia Law

Carroll v. Isle of Palms Pest Control, Inc.

2025-07-23T06:16:46-08:00

James E. Carroll, Jr. signed a contract with Isle of Palms Pest Control, Inc. and SPM Management Company, Inc. for termite protection services for his home. The contract specified the use of the Exterra Termite Interception and Baiting System, with a liability limit of $250,000 for new termite damage. However, the respondents abandoned the bait station system without informing Carroll and began using a liquid application, which was allegedly done negligently. Carroll continued to renew the bait station contract, unaware of the change, and discovered significant termite damage to his home ten years later. Carroll sued the respondents for negligence and breach of contract. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the respondents on the negligence claim, citing the economic loss rule, which confined Carroll's remedy to the breach of contract action. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court clarified that the economic loss rule applies only in the product liability context when the only injury is to the product itself. Since the contract did not involve the sale of a product, the economic loss rule did not apply. The court found that the respondents' conduct in secretly switching to a liquid termiticide application was beyond the contract's scope, creating a duty of due care. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the respondents' negligence and its proximate cause of the termite damage. The case was remanded for further proceedings, with the $250,000 liability limitation applying only if the verdict is based solely on the breach of contract claim. View "Carroll v. Isle of Palms Pest Control, Inc." on Justia Law

Avanzalia Solar, S.L. v. Goldwind USA, Inc.

2025-07-22T10:30:55-08:00

Avanzalia Panamá and its parent company, Avanzalia Solar, built a solar plant in Panama and sought to connect it to the El Coco substation, owned by Goldwind USA's affiliate, UEPI. Avanzalia alleged that Goldwind tortiously blocked their access to the substation, preventing them from selling electricity. Avanzalia filed a complaint with Panama's Autoridad de Servicios Públicos (ASEP), which required them to submit updated electrical studies and obtain an access agreement with UEPI. Despite obtaining the agreement, Avanzalia faced further delays and was unable to connect to the substation until May 2020. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to Goldwind. The court found that Avanzalia could not satisfy the Illinois state law requirement for tortious interference, which necessitates that the defendant's actions be directed at a third party. The court also applied collateral estoppel, concluding that ASEP's findings were binding and precluded Avanzalia's claims related to pre-access agreement delays. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to afford comity to ASEP's order and apply collateral estoppel, barring Avanzalia's claims related to pre-access agreement delays. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred in not considering the impossibility theory of tortious interference under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766A. The court vacated the summary judgment on this issue and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Goldwind wrongfully prevented Avanzalia from performing its contractual obligations. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "Avanzalia Solar, S.L. v. Goldwind USA, Inc." on Justia Law

In re Receivership of United Prairie Bank v. Molnau Trucking LLC

2025-07-18T06:05:10-08:00

A dispute arose between a surety bond company, Granite Re, Inc. (Granite), and a creditor bank, United Prairie Bank (UPB), over entitlement to funds held by a receiver in a receivership action. Granite issued payment bonds to Molnau Trucking LLC (Molnau) for public works projects, but Molnau defaulted on both the projects and loans from UPB. The issue was whether Granite or UPB had priority to the bonded contract funds held by the receiver. Granite argued for priority under equitable subrogation, having paid laborers and suppliers, while UPB claimed priority under the UCC, having perfected its security interests in Molnau’s accounts receivable before Granite issued the bonds. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UPB, recognizing Granite’s equitable subrogation rights but ruling that UPB’s perfected security interest had priority. The court of appeals affirmed, applying a “mistake of fact” standard from mortgage context case law, which Granite did not meet. The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the “mistake of fact” standard does not apply to performing construction sureties. The court concluded that Granite, as a surety, has the right to equitable subrogation without needing to show a mistake of fact. The court further held that a surety’s right to equitable subrogation is not a security interest subject to the UCC’s first-in-time priority rule. Instead, a performing surety has priority over a secured creditor regarding bonded contract funds. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of Granite, allowing Granite to request redistribution of the bonded contract funds. View "In re Receivership of United Prairie Bank v. Molnau Trucking LLC" on Justia Law

Lackie Drug Store, Inc. v. OptumRx, Inc.

2025-07-16T07:30:24-08:00

Lackie Drug Store, Inc. filed a putative class action against OptumRx, Inc. and other pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), alleging violations of several Arkansas statutes due to the PBMs' failure to disclose, update, and notify pharmacies of changes to their Maximum Allowable Cost (MAC) lists. Lackie claimed this resulted in under-reimbursement for prescriptions. The case was initially filed in Arkansas state court and later removed to federal court. Lackie amended its complaint to include five claims, and OptumRx moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed two of Lackie's claims but retained three. The court also denied OptumRx's motion to dismiss based on the argument that Lackie failed to comply with pre-dispute procedures outlined in the Network Agreement. OptumRx later filed an answer and participated in discovery. After Lackie amended its complaint again, adding two new claims and tailoring the class definition to OptumRx, OptumRx moved to compel arbitration based on the Provider Manual's arbitration clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that OptumRx waived its right to compel arbitration for the original three claims by substantially invoking the litigation machinery before asserting its arbitration right. However, the court found that OptumRx did not waive its right to compel arbitration for the two new claims added in the amended complaint. The court also held that the district court erred in addressing the arbitrability of the new claims because the Provider Manual included a delegation clause requiring an arbitrator to decide arbitrability issues. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case with instructions to grant OptumRx's motion to compel arbitration for the two new claims. View "Lackie Drug Store, Inc. v. OptumRx, Inc." on Justia Law

Veltor Underground, LLC v. SBA

2025-07-11T12:30:17-08:00

Veltor Underground LLC, a construction business, applied for a $125,000 loan under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) during the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming it had six employees. However, the Small Business Administration (SBA) later discovered that these "employees" were actually independent contractors. Consequently, the SBA denied Veltor's request for loan forgiveness, as payments to independent contractors do not qualify as "payroll costs" under the CARES Act. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the SBA and associated individuals. The court found that Veltor's payments to independent contractors did not meet the statutory definition of "payroll costs," which is a requirement for loan forgiveness under the PPP. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the CARES Act's definition of "payroll costs" includes only payments to employees and not to independent contractors. The court reasoned that the Act distinguishes between businesses with employees and self-employed individuals, including sole proprietors and independent contractors, and that the term "payroll costs" does not encompass payments made to independent contractors by businesses. Therefore, Veltor was not entitled to loan forgiveness and must repay the loan. View "Veltor Underground, LLC v. SBA" on Justia Law

K7 Design Group, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc.

2025-07-11T07:30:24-08:00

During the COVID-19 pandemic, K7 Design Group, Inc. (K7) offered to sell hand sanitizer to Walmart, Inc., doing business as Sam’s Club (Sam’s Club). K7 and Sam’s Club discussed and agreed upon the product, price, quantity, and delivery terms for various hand sanitizer products through email communications. K7 delivered over 1,000,000 units of hand sanitizer to Sam’s Club, which paid approximately $17.5 million. However, Sam’s Club did not collect or pay for the remaining hand sanitizer, leading to storage issues for K7. The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas held a jury trial, where the jury found in favor of K7 on its breach of contract claim and awarded $7,157,426.14 in damages. Sam’s Club’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial were denied by the district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Sam’s Club argued that K7 failed to present sufficient evidence of an obligation to pay for the products, the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and the district court abused its discretion in instructing the jury. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the communications between K7 and Sam’s Club constituted binding orders under Arkansas’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court found that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its jury instructions or in denying Sam’s Club’s motions. The court also affirmed the district court’s award of prejudgment interest and attorney fees and costs. View "K7 Design Group, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc." on Justia Law

Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company

2025-07-10T07:30:26-08:00

Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc., a Ford dealership in North Branch, Minnesota, operates under a Ford Sales and Service Agreement. In late 2022, Ford announced plans to establish a new dealership in Forest Lake, Minnesota, and to reassign half of Anderson & Koch’s designated sales area to the new dealership. Anderson & Koch filed a lawsuit in state court, alleging violations of the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Sale and Distribution Act (MVSDA), specifically sections 80E.13(k) and (p). Ford removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the claims. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota partially granted Ford’s motion to dismiss, ruling that Anderson & Koch failed to state a claim under sections 80E.13(k) and (p) regarding the establishment of the new dealership. However, the court allowed Anderson & Koch to challenge the proposed change to its designated sales area under the same sections. Anderson & Koch then appealed the dismissal of its claims related to the new dealership. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Anderson & Koch could not challenge the establishment of the new dealership under sections 80E.13(k) or (p) of the MVSDA. The court held that the establishment of a new dealership did not modify the existing franchise agreement, as required by section 80E.13(k), nor did it arbitrarily change the dealer’s area of sales effectiveness under section 80E.13(p). The court also noted that Anderson & Koch had dismissed its claims regarding the change to its sales area, leaving only the challenge to the new dealership on appeal. View "Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company" on Justia Law

Berwald V. Stan's, Inc.

2025-07-10T07:28:48-08:00

Calvin Berwald, operating Sokota Dairy, filed a lawsuit against Stan’s, Inc., a local feed mill, alleging breach of contract and breach of implied warranties. Berwald claimed that Stan’s prematurely canceled a soybean meal purchase agreement and sold him contaminated calf starter, resulting in the death of over 200 calves. Stan’s argued that the contract was canceled due to Berwald’s late payments and that the calf deaths were due to poor facilities and feeding practices. The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Jerauld County granted summary judgment in favor of Stan’s on the breach of contract claim, citing accord and satisfaction. The court found that Berwald’s acceptance and deposit of a check from Stan’s, which was intended to settle the dispute, discharged the claim. A jury trial on the breach of warranty claims resulted in a verdict that Stan’s breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose but awarded no damages to Berwald. The jury found against Berwald on the claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and barratry. The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Stan’s satisfied the requirements for accord and satisfaction under SDCL 57A-3-311. The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the good faith tender of the check, the existence of a bona fide dispute, and Berwald’s acceptance of the payment. The court also upheld the denial of Berwald’s motion for a new trial, finding no newly discovered evidence that would likely produce a different result and no prejudicial juror misconduct. The court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Berwald V. Stan's, Inc." on Justia Law

Sysco Machinery Corp. v. DCS USA Corp.

2025-07-09T10:30:21-08:00

Sysco Machinery Corporation, a Taiwanese company, accused DCS USA Corporation, a North Carolina company, of business torts related to their manufacturer-distributor relationship. Sysco alleged that after some of its employees left to form a competitor, Cymtek Solutions, Inc., DCS sold machines made by Cymtek using Sysco's confidential information. Sysco claimed these diverted contracts were worth millions of dollars. Sysco first filed suit in Taiwan, where it claims to have won a preliminary injunction against Cymtek. Sysco then filed a suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina, which it voluntarily dismissed, followed by a suit in the District of Massachusetts, which was dismissed. Finally, Sysco returned to the Eastern District of North Carolina, where it brought claims for trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and denied Sysco's post-judgment leave to amend its complaint. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Sysco's trade secret misappropriation claim, finding that Sysco did not plausibly allege the existence of a valid trade secret or that DCS misappropriated it. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Sysco's other claims, noting that Sysco did not sufficiently develop its arguments for copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Finally, the court upheld the district court's denial of Sysco's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint, citing Sysco's repeated failure to state a claim and the potential prejudice to DCS. View "Sysco Machinery Corp. v. DCS USA Corp." on Justia Law

Guieb v. Guieb

2025-07-01T11:34:10-08:00

Two brothers, Roland and Robert, ran an automotive business together under Guieb Inc. Their relationship deteriorated when Robert made decisions that Roland disagreed with, including using their company for his own benefit and allegedly stealing the trade name and most profitable shop for his personal companies. Roland sued Robert, alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices, unfair methods of competition, and deceptive trade practices under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 480-2 and 481A-3. He also sought punitive damages for fraud, misrepresentation, nondisclosure, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted Robert’s motion for partial summary judgment (MPSJ) and dismissed Roland’s claims under count 12, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The court also granted Robert’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on punitive damages, preventing the jury from considering them. Additionally, the court ruled that brotherhood did not establish a fiduciary duty, granting Robert’s MPSJ on that issue as well. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed the circuit court on three issues. It held that Roland’s unfair and deceptive trade practices claim should have gone to the jury, as there was evidence that Robert represented Guieb Inc. and Guieb Group as the same entity. The ICA also held that the jury should have considered punitive damages, given the evidence of Robert’s actions that could justify such damages. Lastly, the ICA found that brotherhood created a kinship fiduciary duty, which should have been considered by the jury. The Supreme Court of Hawaii agreed with the ICA that the jury should have considered Roland’s claims under count 12 and punitive damages. However, it disagreed that kinship created a fiduciary duty, affirming the circuit court’s MPSJ on that issue. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Guieb v. Guieb" on Justia Law

Styczinski v. Arnold

2025-06-24T07:30:59-08:00

The case involves a group of in-state and out-of-state precious metal traders and their representatives (the "Bullion Traders") challenging Minnesota Statutes Chapter 80G, which regulates bullion transactions. The Bullion Traders argued that the statute violated the dormant Commerce Clause due to its extraterritorial reach, as defined by the term "Minnesota transaction." The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota initially found that Chapter 80G violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The case was then remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for a severability analysis. The district court concluded that striking portions of the "Minnesota transaction" definition cured the extraterritoriality concern and complied with Minnesota severability law. The Bullion Traders appealed, arguing that the severed statute still applied extraterritorially and that the district court erred in applying Minnesota severability law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the severed definition of "Minnesota transaction" no longer regulated wholly out-of-state commerce and that the statute, as severed, was complete and capable of being executed in accordance with legislative intent. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court correctly severed the extraterritorial provisions from Chapter 80G, and the remaining statute did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The court also agreed that the severed statute complied with Minnesota severability law, as the valid provisions were not essentially and inseparably connected with the void provisions, and the remaining statute was complete and executable. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Styczinski v. Arnold" on Justia Law

SCHEIBE V. PROSUPPS USA, LLC

2025-06-23T08:30:51-08:00

A plaintiff filed a putative class action against a dietary supplement company, alleging that the supplement Hydro BCAA was mislabeled. The plaintiff claimed that preliminary testing showed the supplement contained more carbohydrates and calories than listed on its FDA-prescribed label. The plaintiff tested the supplement using FDA methods but did not follow the FDA’s twelve-sample sampling process. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the complaint, holding that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted the claims because the plaintiff did not plead that he tested the supplement according to the FDA’s sampling process. The district court noted a divide among district courts on whether plaintiffs must plead compliance with the FDA’s testing methods and sampling processes to avoid preemption. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiff’s complaint allowed a reasonable inference that the supplement was misbranded under the Act, even without allegations of compliance with the FDA’s sampling process. The court found that the plaintiff’s preliminary testing of one sample, which showed significant discrepancies in carbohydrate and calorie content, was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The court emphasized that plaintiffs are not required to perform the FDA’s sampling process at the pleading stage to avoid preemption. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal, allowing the plaintiff’s state-law claims to proceed. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to avoid preemption and stated a plausible claim that the supplement was mislabeled under the Act. View "SCHEIBE V. PROSUPPS USA, LLC" on Justia Law

State of Tennessee v. Brown

2025-06-12T07:17:18-08:00

Petitioner Dudley King and eight other individuals consigned their recreational vehicles (RVs) to Music City RV, LLC (MCRV), an RV dealer, for sale. On August 28, 2008, an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition was filed against MCRV in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The issue before the bankruptcy court was whether the consigned RVs were part of the bankruptcy estate. The parties stipulated that MCRV was not primarily engaged in selling consigned vehicles, was a merchant under UCC § 9-102(20), and performed the services of a consignee. None of the consignors filed a UCC-1 financing statement. The Bankruptcy Trustee argued that the consigned RVs were governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and were subordinate to the rights of perfected lien creditors, including the Trustee. Mr. King contended that the consignment was a true consignment of "consumer goods" and not a sale, thus not covered by the UCC, and the RVs should not be part of the estate. The bankruptcy court certified a question to the Supreme Court of Tennessee regarding whether such a consignment is covered under Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-2-326. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the statutory language and the Official Comments to the UCC. The court concluded that the 2001 amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-2-326 removed consignment transactions from the scope of Article 2. The court held that the consignment of an RV by a consumer to a Tennessee RV dealer for the purpose of selling the RV to a third person is not covered under section 47-2-326 of the UCC as adopted in Tennessee. The court assessed the costs of the appeal to the respondent, Robert H. Waldschmidt, Trustee. View "State of Tennessee v. Brown" on Justia Law

Bell v. Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, PA

2025-06-05T06:03:07-08:00

The case involves Ma Shun Bell, who filed a lawsuit against the law firm Friedman, Framme & Thrush (FFT), formerly known as Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, alleging unfair trade practices and abuse of process. Bell claimed that FFT, representing First Investors Servicing Corporation (FISC), pursued a deficiency debt from her despite knowing it was not lawfully recoverable due to procedural defects in the vehicle repossession process. In the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Bell's second amended complaint was dismissed. The court ruled that the complaint failed to allege the elements of a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) violation, that FFT was immune from suit under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) and the D.C. Automobile Financing and Repossession Act (AFRA) due to its role as litigation attorneys, and that the complaint did not articulate how FFT’s conduct violated the Debt Collection Law (DCL). Additionally, the court found that Bell’s claims were barred by res judicata based on a Small Claims Court judgment in favor of FISC, with which FFT was found to be in privity. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court concluded that Bell’s DCL cause of action could proceed, but her other causes of action were properly dismissed. The court held that the Superior Court erred in finding privity between FFT and FISC solely based on their attorney-client relationship and a contingency-fee arrangement. The court determined that the DCL claims were not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel and that Bell had sufficiently alleged that FFT misrepresented the amount of the debt and charged excessive fees. The court affirmed the dismissal of the UCC, CPPA, and abuse of process claims but reversed the dismissal of the DCL claim, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Bell v. Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, PA" on Justia Law

Trombly v. City Cars, LLC

2025-06-05T04:21:16-08:00

The plaintiffs, Kristen Trombly and Christopher Patria, purchased a used vehicle from City Cars, LLC. Shortly after the purchase, they experienced issues with the vehicle's transmission. They contacted the dealership, which directed them to a repair shop that added transmission fluid. Despite this, the transmission problems persisted, and another dealership recommended replacing the transmission at a significant cost. The plaintiffs acknowledged buying the car "as is" but sought assistance from the defendant, who offered a partial refund, which the plaintiffs rejected, demanding a full refund or repair. The plaintiffs filed a complaint in July 2022, alleging a violation of the implied warranty of merchantability under New Hampshire's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The Circuit Court (Ryan, J.) found in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that the vehicle was not merchantable and that the implied warranty had not been disclaimed. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. The defendant argued that the trial court erred by assessing the vehicle's merchantability based on its condition after the sale rather than at the time of sale. The Supreme Court agreed with the defendant, stating that the implied warranty of merchantability applies to the condition of the goods at the time of sale. The court found that the plaintiffs did not provide evidence that the transmission was faulty when the vehicle was sold. Consequently, the trial court's finding of non-merchantability was deemed erroneous. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision. View "Trombly v. City Cars, LLC" on Justia Law

Asociacion de Detallistas de Gasolina de PR Inc. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

2025-05-29T11:30:03-08:00

Plaintiffs, who own or operate gasoline service stations in Puerto Rico, offered two different prices to consumers: a higher price for those using credit or debit cards and a lower price for those paying with cash. In 2013, Puerto Rico's legislature enacted Law 152-2013, amending Law 150-2008 by removing a provision that allowed merchants to offer cash discounts. Plaintiffs ceased offering the lower price due to the threat of fines and criminal prosecution. They sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, arguing that Law 150 is preempted by federal law and is unconstitutionally vague. The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico rejected the plaintiffs' arguments and granted the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court found that neither the Cash Discount Act (CDA) nor the Durbin Amendment preempted Law 150. The court also declined to address the constitutional vagueness argument, noting that the complaint did not allege that Law 150 is unconstitutionally vague. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the CDA and the Durbin Amendment do not preempt Law 150. The CDA regulates the conduct of credit card issuers, not merchants or states, and does not confer an absolute right to offer cash discounts. The Durbin Amendment regulates payment card networks, not states, and does not preempt state legislation restricting cash discounts. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not properly plead a vagueness claim in their complaint, rendering the claim unpreserved for appellate review. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Asociacion de Detallistas de Gasolina de PR Inc. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

Andrews v. Carbon on 26th, LLC

2025-05-22T06:35:13-08:00

Restaurant patrons filed personal injury lawsuits after becoming ill from eating contaminated cilantro. The distributor, Martin Produce, Inc., who sold the cilantro to the restaurants, filed a third-party complaint for contribution against the wholesalers, Jack Tuchten Wholesale Produce, Inc., and La Galera Produce, Inc., from whom it purchased the cilantro. The issue was whether Martin satisfied its obligation to notify the wholesalers of its claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The circuit court of Cook County granted summary judgment in favor of the wholesalers, finding that Martin failed to provide direct notice of its claim as required by the UCC. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the wholesalers had actual knowledge of the defect due to the personal injury lawsuits filed against them, which informed them of the alleged contamination. The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court's judgment. The court held that the wholesalers had actual knowledge of the defect because they were named as defendants in the personal injury lawsuits, which provided them with sufficient notice of the alleged contamination. The court concluded that Martin was not required to provide direct notice under the UCC because the wholesalers were already aware of the specific transactions and the alleged defects. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings on Martin's breach of implied warranty of merchantability complaint against the wholesalers. View "Andrews v. Carbon on 26th, LLC" on Justia Law

Alves v. Weber

2025-05-13T13:00:58-08:00

Petitioners were defrauded by a now-defunct corporation that sold them long-term health care and estate planning services they never received. Unable to obtain compensation directly from the corporation, petitioners secured a federal bankruptcy court judgment against the corporation and applied for restitution from the Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund. The Secretary of State, who administers the Fund, denied their applications, leading petitioners to file a verified petition in the superior court for an order directing payment from the Fund. The superior court granted the petition, and the Secretary appealed. The superior court found that the bankruptcy court judgment was a qualifying judgment for compensation under the Fund. The court noted that the complaint contained allegations of fraud and requested a judgment finding the elements of fraud under California law were satisfied. The superior court also found that the administrative record contained ample evidence supporting the bankruptcy court’s default judgment against the corporation for fraud. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court’s final judgment, which expressly adjudged petitioners as victims of intentional misrepresentation, met the Fund’s requirement for a judgment based on fraud. The court affirmed the superior court’s judgment regarding petitioners' entitlement to payment from the Fund. However, it reversed and remanded the case for the superior court to specify the amount the Secretary shall pay each petitioner, as the original order did not account for the statutory limit of $50,000 per claimant and the need to consider spouses as a single claimant. View "Alves v. Weber" on Justia Law

InfoDeli, LLC v. Western Robidoux, Inc.

2025-05-05T07:30:38-08:00

InfoDeli, LLC and Breht C. Burri (collectively, InfoDeli) brought a lawsuit against Western Robidoux, Inc. (WRI), Engage Mobile Solutions, LLC, and other defendants, including members of the Burri family and several companies. InfoDeli alleged copyright infringement, tortious interference, and violations of the Missouri Computer Tampering Act (MCTA). The dispute arose from a joint venture between InfoDeli and WRI, where InfoDeli created webstores for clients, and WRI provided printing and fulfillment services. The relationship deteriorated when WRI hired Engage to replace InfoDeli's webstores, leading to the lawsuit. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment to the defendants on the copyright infringement claim, dismissed or tried the remaining claims before a jury, which found in favor of the defendants. The district court also granted in part and denied in part InfoDeli's sanctions motion and awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the defendants. InfoDeli appealed these decisions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the copyright infringement claim, finding that InfoDeli failed to show that the nonliteral elements of its webstores were protected by copyright. The court also upheld the district court's denial of InfoDeli's motion for summary judgment on CEVA's conversion counterclaim, finding it was timely under Missouri law. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court's denial of InfoDeli's posttrial motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial as untimely. The Eighth Circuit also reviewed the sanctions imposed by the district court and found no abuse of discretion in the amount awarded or the decision not to impose additional sanctions under Rule 37(e). Finally, the court upheld the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the defendants, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its assessment. The court affirmed the district court's decisions in all respects. View "InfoDeli, LLC v. Western Robidoux, Inc." on Justia Law

Bradshaw Renovations, LLC v. Graham

2025-05-02T06:05:06-08:00

Barry and Jacklynn Graham hired Bradshaw Renovations, LLC to renovate their home. They agreed on a contract with an initial estimate of $136,168.16, which was later revised to $139,168.16. The contract included provisions for revising estimates and required written approval for changes. Throughout the project, Bradshaw sent invoices that varied from the initial estimate, leading to the Grahams' concerns about billing practices. After paying $140,098.79, the Grahams disputed a final invoice of $18,779.15, leading to a legal dispute. The Iowa District Court for Polk County held a jury trial, which found in favor of the Grahams on their breach of contract and consumer fraud claims, awarding them $16,000 and $40,000 respectively. The court denied Bradshaw's claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Bradshaw's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were also denied. The court awarded attorney fees to the Grahams for their consumer fraud claim. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict, the district court's denial of Bradshaw's posttrial motions, and the dismissal of Bradshaw's equitable claims. It also affirmed the attorney fee award but remanded for determination of appellate attorney fees. The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the Grahams did not present substantial evidence of consumer fraud as defined by Iowa Code section 714H.3(1). The court reversed the district court's ruling on the consumer fraud claim and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bradshaw's unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims, as these were covered by the written contract. The court also upheld the $16,000 jury award for the breach of contract claim. View "Bradshaw Renovations, LLC v. Graham" on Justia Law

Clevinger v. Advocacy Holdings, Inc.

2025-04-25T07:01:03-08:00

Advocacy Holdings, a company that helps clients influence public policy through its online platform OneClickPolitics, sued its former CEO, Chazz Clevinger, for breaching a noncompete agreement. Clevinger, who resigned in 2023, allegedly stole Advocacy’s customer list, started competing businesses, solicited Advocacy’s customers, and created a near duplicate of Advocacy’s platform. Advocacy sought a preliminary injunction to stop Clevinger’s actions, claiming irreparable harm. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia partially denied Advocacy’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that Advocacy had not demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm. The court did, however, enjoin Clevinger from using Advocacy’s platform design and interface but allowed him to continue operating his competing businesses and soliciting Advocacy’s customers. Advocacy appealed the partial denial of the preliminary injunction. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Advocacy had not shown irreparable harm. The court noted that financial injuries, such as loss of customers, are typically remediable through monetary damages and do not constitute irreparable harm. Additionally, the court found that Advocacy’s claims of reputational harm were unsubstantiated and that the stipulation of irreparable harm in the noncompete agreement was forfeited because Advocacy did not raise it in its initial motion. The court also declined to consider Advocacy’s sliding-scale argument for evaluating preliminary injunction factors, as it was raised too late. The court concluded that without a showing of irreparable harm, a preliminary injunction was not warranted. View "Clevinger v. Advocacy Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

McPherson v. Suburban Ann Arbor, LLC

2025-04-21T10:30:37-08:00

Tina McPherson purchased a car from Suburban Ann Arbor, a Michigan car dealership, in July 2020. She was misled into believing she had been approved for financing, paid a $2,000 down payment, and drove the car home. Later, she was informed that the financing had fallen through and was given the option to sign a new contract with worse terms or return the car. McPherson refused the new terms, and Suburban repossessed the car and kept her down payment and fees. McPherson sued Suburban, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection laws. A federal jury found Suburban liable for statutory conversion under Michigan law and violations of the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act, among other claims. The jury awarded McPherson $15,000 in actual damages, $23,000 for the value of the converted property, and $350,000 in punitive damages. The district court denied McPherson's request for treble damages but awarded her $418,995 in attorney’s fees, $11,212.61 in costs, and $6,433.65 in prejudgment interest, totaling $824,641.26. McPherson appealed the denial of treble damages and the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, while Suburban cross-appealed the fee award as excessive. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying treble damages, as the $350,000 punitive damages already served to punish and deter Suburban's conduct. The court also found that the district court properly calculated the attorney’s fees, considering the market rates and the skill of McPherson’s attorneys. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "McPherson v. Suburban Ann Arbor, LLC" on Justia Law

Diaz v. FCA US LLC

2025-04-15T09:00:10-08:00

Plaintiffs alleged that an automobile manufacturer designed, manufactured, and sold defective vehicles, specifically Dodge "muscle" cars with defective rear differentials. They filed a complaint asserting state and federal causes of action based on fraud and breach of warranty. The District Court dismissed the fraud counts and some warranty counts, allowing plaintiffs to amend their complaint. After amending, the District Court dismissed the fraud counts again and some warranty counts, but allowed two warranty counts to proceed. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware initially dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to amend it. After the plaintiffs amended their complaint, the District Court dismissed the fraud counts and some warranty counts with prejudice, but allowed two warranty counts to proceed. The plaintiffs then moved to certify the dismissal of their fraud counts for appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or for final judgment under Rule 54(b). The District Court denied the request for certification under § 1292(b) but granted the request for final judgment under Rule 54(b) for the fraud counts. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the District Court's Rule 54(b) judgment was not final. The Court of Appeals held that the fraud and warranty counts constituted a single claim for purposes of Rule 54(b) because they were alternative theories of recovery based on the same factual situation. As a result, the judgment did not dispose of all the rights or liabilities of one or more of the parties. Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and instructed the District Court to vacate its order directing the entry of a partial final judgment. View "Diaz v. FCA US LLC" on Justia Law

Garage Door Systems, LLC v Blue Giant Equipment Corp.

2025-04-11T13:30:31-08:00

Overhead Door Company of Indianapolis contracted with Blue Giant Equipment Corporation, a Canadian company, for the purchase of multiple dock levelers. After installation, Overhead experienced issues with the levelers and sued Blue Giant in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for breach of contract and warranty. Blue Giant moved to dismiss, citing a provision in its standard terms requiring arbitration in Ontario, Canada. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the standard terms were not incorporated into the parties' contract. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana reviewed the case and denied Blue Giant's motion to dismiss. The court found that the mere reference to standard terms on a website was insufficient to incorporate those terms into the contract between Overhead and Blue Giant. Blue Giant appealed the decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Blue Giant's reference to its Terms and Conditions on its website was sufficient to incorporate those terms into the contract. The court noted that the reference was conspicuous and provided Overhead with reasonable opportunity to take notice of the terms. The court concluded that the parties were obligated to resolve their dispute through arbitration in Ontario, Canada, as specified in the incorporated terms. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Garage Door Systems, LLC v Blue Giant Equipment Corp." on Justia Law

Zyla Life Sciences v. Wells Pharma

2025-04-10T16:30:15-08:00

Zyla Life Sciences, LLC (Zyla) sells FDA-approved indomethacin suppositories, while Wells Pharma of Houston, LLC (Wells Pharma) sells compounded indomethacin suppositories that are not FDA-approved but are produced in a registered compounding facility. Zyla filed suit against Wells Pharma under the unfair-competition laws of six states, arguing that Wells Pharma's sales violated state laws that mirror the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) by requiring FDA approval for new drugs. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Wells Pharma's motion to dismiss, holding that the state laws were preempted by federal law. Zyla appealed the decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fifth Circuit held that state laws mirroring federal requirements are not preempted by the FDCA. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in California v. Zook, which established that state laws incorporating federal law do not create a conflict and are not preempted. The court also distinguished this case from Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, noting that Buckman involved state-law claims of fraud on a federal agency, which is a uniquely federal concern, unlike the parallel state regulations at issue here. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the state laws in question do not conflict with the FDCA and do not interfere with federal enforcement discretion. Therefore, the district court's order granting Wells Pharma's motion to dismiss was reversed, Wells Pharma's cross-appeal for attorney's fees was dismissed as moot, and the district court's order denying Zyla's motion for leave to amend was vacated. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Zyla Life Sciences v. Wells Pharma" on Justia Law

Tilley v. Malvern National Bank

2025-04-10T07:01:21-08:00

Kenneth Tilley sought financing from Malvern National Bank (MNB) for a real estate development project in 2009 and 2010, totaling $350,000. Tilley claimed MNB engaged in unfair dealings and sued for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), tortious interference, negligence, and fraud. The case has been appealed multiple times, with the Arkansas Supreme Court previously reversing decisions related to Tilley's right to a jury trial. Initially, the Garland County Circuit Court struck Tilley's jury demand, which was reversed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. After remand, the circuit court reinstated a bench trial verdict, citing Act 13 of 2018, which was again reversed by the Supreme Court. On the third remand, MNB moved for summary judgment on all claims. The circuit court granted summary judgment, citing Tilley's reduction of collateral as a material alteration of the agreement, a rationale not argued by MNB. Tilley appealed this decision. The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the circuit court did not violate the mandate by considering summary judgment. However, it was reversible error for the circuit court to grant summary judgment based on an unargued rationale. The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on Tilley's ADTPA, tortious interference, and negligence claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Tilley's breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud claims, determining that there were disputed material facts that required a jury trial. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Tilley v. Malvern National Bank" on Justia Law

Comptroller v. Badlia Brothers, LLC

2025-04-08T11:35:35-08:00

Badlia Brothers, LLC, a check-cashing business, cashed 15 checks issued by the State of Maryland. These checks had already been paid by the State before Badlia presented them for payment. Some checks were deposited using a mobile app, creating "substitute checks," and were then fraudulently or negligently presented to Badlia. Others were reported lost or stolen, leading the State to issue stop payment orders and replacement checks, which were also cashed by Badlia. Badlia accepted the checks without knowledge of prior payments and sought payment from the State, which refused. Badlia filed complaints in the District Court of Maryland, claiming the right to enforce the checks as a holder in due course. The court consolidated the cases, ruled that the State enjoyed qualified immunity, and dismissed the cases. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City reversed, holding that a check is a contract, and thus, the State had waived sovereign immunity. On remand, the District Court found that Badlia was a holder in due course entitled to enforce the checks. The Circuit Court affirmed, and the State petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that a check is a contract for purposes of the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity under § 12-201(a) of the State Government Article. The court affirmed the Circuit Court's decision, concluding that the State has waived sovereign immunity for claims by a holder in due course seeking payment on an authorized State-issued check. View "Comptroller v. Badlia Brothers, LLC" on Justia Law

Mills v. J-M Mfg. Co., Inc.

2025-04-08T10:40:01-08:00

Charter Oak Production Co., LLC paid to settle a property damage claim after a pipeline installed on its easement ruptured, causing a saltwater spill on the property of Jason and Melissa Mills. Charter Oak sought indemnity from JM Eagle, Inc., the manufacturer, and Rainmaker Sales, Inc., the distributor, alleging the pipe was defective. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of JM Eagle and Rainmaker, finding that Charter Oak lacked the necessary legal relationship to assert an indemnity claim and that the claim was barred by the economic loss rule. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, reversed the district court's decision. It found that Charter Oak's non-delegable duty to the Millses created the legal relationship necessary to support an indemnity claim against JM Eagle and Rainmaker. Additionally, it held that Charter Oak's claim was not barred by the economic loss rule. The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case. It held that Charter Oak's non-delegable duty as the dominant tenant of the easement established the legal relationship necessary to seek indemnity from JM Eagle and Rainmaker. The court also held that the economic loss rule did not bar Charter Oak's indemnity claim, as it sought reimbursement for damage to property other than the defective product itself. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' decision, reversed the district court's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Mills v. J-M Mfg. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Studco Building Systems US, LLC v. 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union

2025-03-26T10:30:20-08:00

Studco Building Systems US, LLC, a metal fabricator, regularly purchased steel from Olympic Steel, Inc. and paid invoices via ACH payments. In October 2018, Studco received a fraudulent email, purportedly from Olympic, instructing it to redirect payments to a new account at 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union. Studco complied, transferring over $550,000 to the scammers' account. The scammers were never identified, and Studco bore the loss. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held a bench trial and ruled in favor of Studco, awarding it $558,868.71 plus attorney fees and costs. The court found 1st Advantage liable under Virginia Code § 8.4A-207 for failing to act in a commercially reasonable manner and for breach of bailment. The court concluded that 1st Advantage should have detected the misdescription of the account name and number. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's judgment on the misdescription claim, holding that under Virginia Code § 8.4A-207, a bank is not liable for depositing funds into an account based on the account number provided, unless it has actual knowledge of a misdescription. The court found no evidence that 1st Advantage had actual knowledge of the misdescription. The court also reversed the judgment on the bailment claim, stating that a general deposit in a bank does not create a bailment under Virginia law. The court affirmed the district court's denial of punitive damages to Studco. The Fourth Circuit's main holding was that 1st Advantage was not liable under § 8.4A-207 because it lacked actual knowledge of the misdescription, and no bailment was created by the ACH deposits. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of 1st Advantage. View "Studco Building Systems US, LLC v. 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union" on Justia Law

Island Girl Outfitters, LLC v. Allied Development of Alabama, LLC

2025-03-21T05:30:07-08:00

Island Girl Outfitters, LLC (IGO) operated a store called Hippie Gurlz at Eastern Shore Centre, an outdoor shopping mall owned by Allied Development of Alabama, LLC. IGO signed a five-year lease in late 2020 but closed the store after the first year due to slow sales. Allied Development filed a complaint in Baldwin Circuit Court seeking rent and other damages under the lease. The trial court entered a $94,350 judgment in favor of Allied Development against IGO and its owner, Anthony S. Carver, who had personally guaranteed the lease. The Baldwin Circuit Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Allied Development, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding IGO's liability for breaching the lease. The court then held a hearing to determine damages, ultimately awarding Allied Development $94,350. IGO and Carver appealed, arguing that Allied Development failed to market and maintain the mall adequately and that they should not be liable for future rent since the storefront was relet shortly after they vacated. The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo regarding the liability determination and under the ore tenus rule for the damages award. The court found that IGO and Carver failed to show that Allied Development had a contractual duty to market and maintain the mall in a specific manner. Therefore, the trial court's summary judgment on liability was affirmed. Regarding damages, the absence of a transcript from the damages hearing meant the court had to presume the trial court's findings were correct. Consequently, the $94,350 judgment was affirmed. View "Island Girl Outfitters, LLC v. Allied Development of Alabama, LLC" on Justia Law

Radco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. v. Commercial Resources, Inc.

2025-03-14T01:23:49-08:00

Stewart Dubose took over Radco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. from his father, John Dubose Sr., and sought to increase the company's cash flow by engaging Commercial Resources, Inc. for an accounts receivable line of credit. Stewart personally guaranteed the debt. Commercial Resources advanced over two million dollars to Radco, but payments ceased in 2015. John Dubose later took control of Radco and began liquidating its assets. Stewart and John settled a separate dispute, agreeing to sell Radco to Dynasty Energy Services, LLC, which assumed Radco's liabilities. Commercial Resources filed a lawsuit against Radco, Stewart, and Dynasty for the outstanding debt. Radco and Dynasty counterclaimed, alleging various defenses and claims against Commercial Resources. The case proceeded to trial, where the court granted a directed verdict against Radco and Stewart, finding them liable for the debt. The jury found Dynasty liable for $448,528.60 but awarded zero damages against Radco and Stewart. The trial court later amended the judgment to hold Radco, Stewart, and Dynasty jointly liable for the debt. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court found no error in the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment dismissing Radco and Dynasty's affirmative defenses due to their delay in pursuing them. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to admit parol evidence, finding the Purchase Agreement ambiguous. The court affirmed the directed verdict against Radco and Stewart, agreeing that Stewart had authority to enter the agreement and that Radco ratified it. The court found no error in the jury instructions or the trial court's denial of post-trial motions. The court also upheld the trial court's award of attorneys' fees to Commercial Resources, finding it appropriate under the contractual provisions. View "Radco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. v. Commercial Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

Six4Three v. Facebook

2025-03-12T14:31:53-08:00

Six4Three, LLC developed an app called "Pikinis" that allowed users to search for photos of people in bathing suits on Facebook. Six4Three sued Facebook, Inc. and six individuals, alleging a "bait-and-switch" scheme where Facebook initially provided developers with access to data but later restricted it. Six4Three claimed this restriction harmed their business. The case began in April 2015, with Six4Three filing against Facebook. Facebook responded with demurrers, leading to multiple amended complaints. The trial court allowed new causes of action but not new defendants. Six4Three filed a third amended complaint and sought to add individual defendants through a writ of mandate. The trial court sustained some demurrers and granted summary adjudication on certain damages. Six4Three's fourth amended complaint included eight causes of action against Facebook. Facebook filed an anti-SLAPP motion, and the trial court initially denied it as untimely but granted the individual defendants' anti-SLAPP motion. On appeal, the denial of Facebook's motion was affirmed, but the individual defendants' motion was remanded for reconsideration. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering Facebook's untimely anti-SLAPP motion after granting the individual defendants' motion. The court also held that Six4Three failed to demonstrate the commercial speech exception to the anti-SLAPP statute and did not show a probability of prevailing on its claims. The court affirmed the trial court's orders granting the anti-SLAPP motions and awarding $683,417.50 in attorney fees to the defendants. The court concluded that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred Six4Three's non-contract claims and that Six4Three did not show a probability of prevailing on its breach of contract claim. View "Six4Three v. Facebook" on Justia Law

West Virginia Automobile and Truck Dealers' Association v. Ford Motor Co.

2025-03-11T11:11:52-08:00

The case involves a dispute between several car dealers (Thornhill Auto Group, Moses Ford, and Astorg Ford of Parkersburg) and Ford Motor Company. The dealers had renovated their facilities to meet Ford's Trustmark standards under a voluntary Facility Assistance Program, which provided matching funds up to $750,000. These renovations included specific franchisor image elements required and approved by Ford. Later, Ford introduced the Lincoln Commitment Program (LCP), which offered additional incentives for dealers who constructed exclusive Lincoln facilities, known as Vitrine facilities. The dealers did not meet the new LCP standards and thus did not receive the full incentives. The dealers filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, arguing that Ford's actions violated West Virginia Code section 17A-6A-10(1)(i). This statute prohibits manufacturers from requiring dealers to replace or substantially alter franchisor image elements installed within the preceding ten years if those elements were required and approved by the manufacturer. The district court found that the issue was a question of first impression and certified the question to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that the ten-year grandfather clause in West Virginia Code section 17A-6A-10(1)(i) applies to the dealers. The Court found that the dealers' renovations under the Facility Assistance Program, which included franchisor image elements required and approved by Ford, fell within the statute's protection. Therefore, Ford could not require the dealers to replace or substantially alter those elements within ten years of their installation. The Court answered the certified question in the affirmative and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "West Virginia Automobile and Truck Dealers' Association v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Golden Gate/S.E.T. Retail of Nevada, LLC v. Modern Welding Co. of California, Inc.

2025-03-06T12:04:43-08:00

Golden Gate/S.E.T. Retail of Nevada, LLC, purchased an underground storage tank from Modern Welding Company of California, Inc. in 2008, which came with a one-year express warranty. In 2016, Golden Gate discovered a crack in the tank and sought replacement under the warranty, but Modern refused, citing the expired warranty. Golden Gate sued Modern, among others, initially for negligence and breach of express warranty, later amending the complaint to include a breach of implied warranty claim. The Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County granted summary judgment in favor of Modern, finding that both the express and implied warranty claims were time-barred. The court also awarded Modern attorney fees and costs. Golden Gate appealed, arguing that the discovery rule should toll the statute of limitations for the implied warranty claim. The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that discovery tolling does not apply to breach of implied warranty claims under the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court emphasized that NRS 104.2725(2) specifies that a cause of action for breach of warranty accrues upon delivery of the goods, regardless of the buyer's knowledge of the breach. Therefore, Golden Gate's implied warranty claim, filed in 2019, was time-barred as the statute of limitations expired in 2012. Additionally, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's award of attorney fees to Modern. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, including the summary judgment and the post-judgment award of attorney fees. View "Golden Gate/S.E.T. Retail of Nevada, LLC v. Modern Welding Co. of California, Inc." on Justia Law

DCA Capitol Hill LTAC, LLC v. Capitol Hill Group

2025-03-06T07:01:59-08:00

DCA Capitol Hill LTAC, LLC and DCA Capitol Hill SNF, LLC (collectively, “DCA”) leased a property from Capitol Hill Group (“CHG”) in Northeast Washington, DC, to operate a long-term acute care hospital and skilled nursing facility. In 2015, DCA began withholding rent payments, claiming dissatisfaction with CHG’s installation of a new HVAC system and generator. CHG sued for breach of contract, and DCA counterclaimed for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and fraud, alleging misrepresentations by CHG. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to CHG on DCA’s fraud counterclaims related to pre-lease representations, citing the lease’s integration clauses. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of CHG on its breach-of-contract claim and DCA’s counterclaims, finding that CHG had fulfilled its obligations regarding the HVAC system and generator work. The court also awarded CHG attorneys’ fees based on a provision in the lease. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings. The appellate court held that DCA’s fraud claims related to pre-lease representations failed as a matter of law because DCA’s reliance on the alleged misrepresentations was unreasonable. The court also concluded that CHG had not breached the lease, as the term “new HVAC system” did not include distribution components, and CHG had fulfilled its generator-related obligations by replacing one generator. The court upheld the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to CHG, finding no abuse of discretion. The case was remanded to the trial court to consider whether to award CHG attorneys’ fees associated with the appeal. View "DCA Capitol Hill LTAC, LLC v. Capitol Hill Group" on Justia Law

W.R. Cobb Company v. VJ Designs, LLC

2025-02-28T14:30:03-08:00

The case involves a business venture between W.R. Cobb Company (Cobb) and V.J. Designs LLC (VJ Designs) to sell diamond products under the Forevermark brand. Cobb, unable to secure a license directly from Forevermark, entered into an agreement with VJ Designs, an existing Forevermark licensee, to form a new company, WR Cobb/VJ LLC (the Joint Entity). The agreement stipulated that the Joint Entity would operate under the Forevermark license. However, VJ Designs could not transfer its Forevermark rights without Forevermark's written consent. The venture quickly fell apart, and Cobb sued VJ Designs and its owner, Benjamin Galili, to recover funds paid under the agreement, alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation. The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island held a two-day bench trial and ruled in favor of VJ Designs and Galili on all claims. The court found that VJ Designs did not breach the contract or misrepresent any material facts. Cobb appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not rescinding the agreement and not holding Galili personally liable for fraud and misrepresentation. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that VJ Designs did not breach the contract by failing to assign the Forevermark license to the Joint Entity upon execution of the agreement. The court found no provision in the agreement requiring immediate transfer of the license and noted that the parties understood Forevermark's consent was necessary. The court also rejected Cobb's claims of fraud and misrepresentation, finding no evidence of material misrepresentation by VJ Designs or Galili. Additionally, the court dismissed Cobb's mutual mistake theory as it was not pled in the complaint and was raised too late in the proceedings. View "W.R. Cobb Company v. VJ Designs, LLC" on Justia Law

KEY V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

2025-02-25T09:30:58-08:00

Plaintiffs sued Qualcomm Inc., alleging that its business practices violated state and federal antitrust laws. These practices included Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy, which required cellular manufacturers to license Qualcomm’s patents to purchase its modem chips, and alleged exclusive dealing agreements with Apple and Samsung. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had previously challenged these practices, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling in favor of the FTC, holding that Qualcomm did not violate the Sherman Act. The district court in the current case certified a nationwide class, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded to consider the viability of plaintiffs’ claims post-FTC v. Qualcomm. On remand, plaintiffs proceeded with state-law claims under California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The district court dismissed the tying claims and granted summary judgment on the exclusive dealing claims. The court found that the Cartwright Act did not depart from the Sherman Act and that plaintiffs failed to show market foreclosure or anticompetitive impact in the tied product market. The court also rejected the UCL claims, finding no fraudulent practices and determining that plaintiffs could not seek equitable relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the tying claims and the summary judgment on the exclusive dealing claims under the Cartwright Act. The court held that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy was not anticompetitive and that plaintiffs failed to show substantial market foreclosure or antitrust injury. The court also affirmed the rejection of the UCL claims but vacated the summary judgment on the UCL unfairness claim related to exclusive dealing, remanding with instructions to dismiss that claim without prejudice for refiling in state court. View "KEY V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED" on Justia Law

Sunz Insurance Company v. Treasury Department

2025-01-08T13:30:49-08:00

Payroll Management, Inc. filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and received $1,070,330.23 from British Petroleum, Inc. for economic losses due to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Sunz Insurance Company claimed a first-priority security interest in these funds, asserting that its security interest attached and perfected before any other creditor. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contended that its federal tax lien had first priority as it attached and perfected first. Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, determining that Payroll’s BP claim was a commercial tort claim when the IRS filed its tax lien notice. The court found that the IRS’s tax lien attached and perfected first, while Sunz’s security interest did not attach to commercial tort claims. The district court affirmed this decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that Payroll’s BP claim remained a commercial tort claim in March 2017 when the IRS filed its tax lien notice. The settlement agreement did not automatically convert the tort claim into a contract, as it did not create an automatic obligation for BP to pay Payroll a certain amount. Therefore, the IRS’s tax lien, which attached and perfected first, took priority over Sunz’s security interest. The court concluded that the IRS was entitled to the $1,070,330.23 payment. View "Sunz Insurance Company v. Treasury Department" on Justia Law

Tuli v. Specialty Surgical Center of Thousand Oaks, LLC

2025-01-01T09:13:57-08:00

A non-medical entrepreneur, Randhir Tuli, helped form a medical business with Dr. Andrew Brooks, creating a group of surgery centers. Tuli, who was initially active, later became inactive but continued to take profits. His colleagues, frustrated by his inactivity, sought to buy him out, but Tuli refused. Tuli then sent a threatening letter to potential investors, suggesting criminal liability, without a good faith basis. In response, the company warned Tuli to rectify the situation within 30 days or face ejection without compensation. Tuli did not comply, and the company ejected him, paying him nothing. Tuli then initiated a decade-long litigation against his former colleagues. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County rejected all of Tuli’s claims. Tuli appealed, and the case was reviewed by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight. The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the business judgment rule protected the company’s decision to eject Tuli. The court found that the company acted rationally to protect its interests and that Tuli’s letter was disruptive and baseless. The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that the business judgment rule applied, as the company’s actions were rational and in the best interest of the business. The court found no conflict of interest, bad faith, or improper investigation by the company. It also ruled that Tuli’s claims for declaratory relief, unfair competition, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing were without merit. The court concluded that Tuli’s ejection and the zero-dollar redemption of his shares were not an illegal forfeiture, as Tuli had already received substantial returns on his investment and had disrupted the business. View "Tuli v. Specialty Surgical Center of Thousand Oaks, LLC" on Justia Law

Federal Trade Commission v. Pukke

2024-12-12T11:30:17-08:00

The case involves Andris Pukke, Peter Baker, and John Usher, who were found liable for violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and a permanent injunction from a prior fraud case. They were involved in a real estate scam, selling lots in a development called "Sanctuary Belize" through deceptive practices. The district court issued an equitable monetary judgment of $120.2 million for consumer redress, imposed an asset freeze, and appointed a receiver. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland found the defendants liable after a bench trial and issued permanent injunctions against them. The court also held them in contempt for violating a prior judgment in a related case, ordering them to pay the same $120.2 million in consumer redress. The defendants appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, except for vacating the monetary judgment to the extent it relied on FTC Act Section 13(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision to maintain the receivership and asset freeze. The court held that the receivership and asset freeze were necessary to effectuate the injunctive relief and ensure that the defendants did not continue to profit from their deceptive practices. The court also found that the contempt judgment supported maintaining the receivership and asset freeze until the judgment was satisfied. The court emphasized the defendants' history of deceptive conduct and the need for a professional receiver to manage and distribute the assets to defrauded consumers. The judgment was affirmed. View "Federal Trade Commission v. Pukke" on Justia Law

Genho v. Riverdale Hot Springs, LLC

2024-12-10T10:34:17-08:00

Daniel Genho and Riverdale Hot Springs, LLC had a dispute over payment for construction work Genho performed at Riverdale Resort. Genho was not a registered contractor at the start of the project but became registered midway through. Riverdale refused to pay Genho and prevented him from retrieving his tools and materials. Genho filed a Mechanic’s and Materialmen’s Lien and sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, conversion, and to foreclose on the lien. The District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of Idaho granted Riverdale’s motion for a directed verdict on the breach of contract claim but denied it on the other claims. The court found that there were two separate transactions: one before and one after Genho became a registered contractor. The court allowed the jury to consider the unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, conversion, and lien foreclosure claims. The jury found in favor of Genho, awarding him $295,568, which was later reduced to $68,681. The district court also awarded attorney fees to Genho. The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision in part and reversed it in part. The court held that equitable remedies are available under the Idaho Contractor Registration Act (ICRA) for work performed after a contractor becomes registered, provided the work is severable from the unregistered work. The court affirmed the denial of a directed verdict on the unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and lien foreclosure claims but reversed the award of attorney fees for the conversion claim, as it was not based on a commercial transaction. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees for the foreclosure action under Idaho Code section 45-513. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. The judgment was vacated and remanded for modification consistent with the opinion. View "Genho v. Riverdale Hot Springs, LLC" on Justia Law

WINDY COVE, INC. V. CIRCLE K STORES INC.

2024-12-03T09:00:25-08:00

Windy Cove, Inc., HB Fuels, Inc., and Staffing and Management Group, Inc. (collectively “Windy Cove”) are gasoline dealers who own Mobil-branded stations in southern California. In 2012, they entered into a 15-year exclusive fuel supply agreement with Circle K Stores Inc. as required by the agreement under which they purchased their gas stations from ExxonMobil. Windy Cove alleged that Circle K did not set gasoline prices in good faith under this exclusive distributorship contract. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Circle K. The court found that the prices charged by Circle K were within the range of those charged by its competitors, including at least one refiner, and thus were set in good faith under California Commercial Code § 2305(2). Windy Cove failed to provide evidence that Circle K's prices were discriminatory or commercially unreasonable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, holding that Circle K’s prices were presumptively set in good faith because the contract had a “price in effect” term. The court noted that the safe harbor provision under Uniform Commercial Code § 2-305, which is codified as California Commercial Code § 2305(2), presumes good faith if the prices are within the range of those charged by competitors. The court found that Circle K’s prices were lower than at least one refiner, thus falling within the range of prices charged by competitors. Windy Cove’s arguments regarding Circle K’s use of a non-industry-standard pricing formula and higher prices compared to other wholesalers did not rebut the presumption of good faith. The court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate and affirmed the district court’s decision. View "WINDY COVE, INC. V. CIRCLE K STORES INC." on Justia Law

Colony Place South, Inc. v. Volvo Car USA, LLC

2024-11-21T14:30:04-08:00

Two Massachusetts-based Volvo dealers filed a lawsuit against Volvo Car USA, Volvo Car Financial Services, and Fidelity Warranty Services, alleging violations of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93B. The dispute centers on Volvo-branded Prepaid Maintenance Program (PPM) contracts, which allow customers to prepay for future maintenance services at a discounted rate. Fidelity administers these contracts, which the dealers sell to their customers. The dealers claimed that the defendants were underpaying them for the parts and labor costs incurred in servicing these PPM contracts. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard cross-motions for summary judgment from both parties. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that entities like Fidelity are not regulated by the relevant provisions of Chapter 93B. The court denied the dealers' motion for summary judgment, leading the dealers to appeal the decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision, but for a different reason. The appellate court held that the dealers' sale and service of the Volvo PPM are not franchise obligations under Chapter 93B. The court found that the Retailer Agreement between the dealers and Volvo USA did not obligate the dealers to sell or service the Volvo PPM. The court also noted that the dealers had the discretion to sell various financial products, including the Volvo PPM, and that servicing the PPM was not a material term of the Retailer Agreement. Therefore, Chapter 93B did not require Fidelity to reimburse the dealers at the statutory rates. View "Colony Place South, Inc. v. Volvo Car USA, LLC" on Justia Law

US Ghost Adventures, LLC v. Miss Lizzie's Coffee LLC

2024-11-15T13:30:04-08:00

US Ghost Adventures, LLC (Ghost Adventures) operates a bed and breakfast at the Lizzie Borden House in Fall River, Massachusetts, offering ghost tours and related activities. Ghost Adventures holds federal trademarks for the name "Lizzie Borden" and a hatchet logo. Miss Lizzie's Coffee LLC (Miss Lizzie's) opened a coffee shop next to the Lizzie Borden House, using the Lizzie Borden story in its marketing, including a hatchet logo and references to being "The Most Haunted Coffee Shop in the World." Some visitors mistakenly believed the two businesses were affiliated. Ghost Adventures sued Miss Lizzie's in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for trademark infringement and unfair competition, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Miss Lizzie's from using the "Lizzie Borden" name and hatchet logo. The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that Ghost Adventures failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court determined that the key element in any infringement action is the likelihood of confusion, which Ghost Adventures did not demonstrate. The court found that Miss Lizzie's hatchet logo and use of the name "Lizzie" were not similar enough to Ghost Adventures' trademarks to cause confusion. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the hatchet logos were dissimilar and that Miss Lizzie's reference to "Lizzie" was to the historical figure, not the trademark. The court also found that any consumer confusion was due to the proximity of the businesses and their common reliance on the Lizzie Borden story, not the similarity of their marks. The court concluded that Ghost Adventures did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "US Ghost Adventures, LLC v. Miss Lizzie's Coffee LLC" on Justia Law

Hafen v. Howell

2024-11-15T08:30:53-08:00

Les and Gretchen Howell invested in a silver-trading scheme called the Silver Pool, operated by Gaylen Rust through Rust Rare Coin. Les invested about $1.2 million and received $3.2 million in profits, while Gretchen invested $96,450 but lost $74,450. Les used his profits to buy land and build a house in Kingman, Arizona, and made Gretchen a joint tenant. The Silver Pool was later exposed as a Ponzi scheme, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) brought an enforcement action against Rust. Jonathan O. Hafen was appointed as the receiver to recover assets fraudulently transferred through the scheme. The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted Hafen summary judgment against Les and Gretchen on fraudulent-transfer claims under Utah’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), ordering them to return Les’s $3.2 million profit. The court also awarded Hafen prejudgment interest at a 5% rate. The Howells sought reconsideration and clarification of the judgment, particularly regarding Gretchen’s liability. The district court clarified that Gretchen was liable for $1.5 million, representing half of the $3 million Les invested in the Kingman property. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s application of the Ponzi presumption under the UVTA and the reliance on expert reports. However, it found that the district court erred in calculating the judgment against Gretchen. The appellate court held that the judgment should reflect the value of Gretchen’s interest in the Kingman property at the time of transfer, not the amount Les invested. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine the correct amount of the judgment against Gretchen. The court otherwise affirmed the district court’s rulings. View "Hafen v. Howell" on Justia Law

VFS Leasing Co. v. Markel Insurance Company

2024-10-30T12:31:03-08:00

VFS Leasing Co. ("VFS") leased trucks to Time Definite Leasing, LLC ("TDL"), which insured the trucks with Markel American Insurance Company ("Markel American"). Markel American issued joint checks to VFS and TDL for insurance claims, but TDL cashed the checks without VFS's endorsement and kept the proceeds. VFS sued Markel American for breach of contract, claiming it was owed the funds from the joint checks. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of VFS, holding that Markel American breached the insurance contract by failing to ensure VFS received the funds. The court found that under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Markel American's obligation was not discharged because the checks were not properly endorsed by both co-payees. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether Markel American's obligation to VFS was discharged when the drawee bank improperly accepted the joint checks. The court concluded that under Florida Statute § 673.4141(3), a drawer's obligation is discharged when a bank accepts a jointly issued check, regardless of whether both co-payees endorsed it. The court noted that while VFS could pursue a conversion claim against the bank, Markel American's obligation was discharged upon the bank's acceptance of the checks. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of VFS and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VFS Leasing Co. v. Markel Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Texas Truck Parts & Tire v. United States

2024-10-08T15:30:15-08:00

Texas Truck Parts & Tire, Incorporated, a wholesaler and retailer of truck parts and tires, purchased tires from Chinese manufacturers between 2012 and 2017. These manufacturers shipped the tires to Texas Truck in Houston, Texas. Texas Truck did not file quarterly excise tax returns or pay excise taxes on the tires, believing the Chinese manufacturers were the importers responsible for the tax. Following an IRS audit, Texas Truck was assessed approximately $1.9 million in taxes. Texas Truck paid a portion of the taxes and filed for a refund, which the IRS did not act upon, leading Texas Truck to file a lawsuit seeking a refund. The Government counterclaimed for the remaining taxes owed. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Texas Truck, determining that the Chinese manufacturers were the importers and thus liable for the excise tax. The court based its decision on the interpretation that Texas Truck did not "bring" the tires into the United States under the applicable Treasury regulation, and did not consider whether Texas Truck was the beneficial owner of the tires. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that Texas Truck was the beneficial owner of the tires and therefore liable for the excise tax. The court found that the district court erred by not considering whether Texas Truck was the beneficial owner under the Treasury regulation. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Chinese manufacturers were nominal importers and that Texas Truck, as the beneficial owner, was responsible for the excise tax. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Texas Truck, rendered judgment for the Government, and remanded the case to the district court to determine the damages. View "Texas Truck Parts & Tire v. United States" on Justia Law

Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC v. Pavestone, LLC

2024-09-19T10:12:44-08:00

Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC supplied Pavestone, LLC with aggregate used to manufacture pavers. After customers complained about efflorescence on the pavers, Pavestone determined that sodium carbonate in Hi-Tech’s aggregate caused the issue. Pavestone sued Hi-Tech for negligence, products liability, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. The district court ruled in favor of Pavestone on the breach of warranty and products liability claims. The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County conducted a bench trial and found that Hi-Tech breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and was liable under products liability. Hi-Tech appealed the decision, arguing that it did not know of Pavestone’s specific need for sodium-free aggregate and that the economic loss doctrine barred Pavestone’s tort claims. The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that Hi-Tech’s sale of aggregate carried an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because Hi-Tech had reason to know Pavestone’s intended use. The court adopted the reasoning of UCC § 2-315, which does not require proof of a seller’s actual knowledge if the seller had reason to know the product’s intended purpose. The court also held that Pavestone was excused from testing the aggregate for sodium carbonate because the defect was latent and not detectable through a simple examination. However, the court reversed the district court’s ruling on the products liability claim, holding that the economic loss doctrine precluded Pavestone’s noncontractual claims. The doctrine applies when the damage is to the product itself and not to other property. Pavestone did not provide sufficient evidence of damage to property other than the pavers. Thus, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s judgment on the warranty claim but reversed its judgment on the products liability claims. View "Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC v. Pavestone, LLC" on Justia Law

Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A.

2024-09-12T07:30:47-08:00

Thomas Petters orchestrated a Ponzi scheme through his company, Petters Company, Inc. (PCI), which collapsed in 2008. Following Petters' arrest and conviction, PCI was placed into receivership, and Douglas Kelley was appointed as the receiver. Kelley later filed for bankruptcy on behalf of PCI and was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee. As trustee, Kelley initiated an adversary proceeding against BMO Harris Bank, alleging that the bank aided and abetted the Ponzi scheme. The bankruptcy court and the district court both ruled that the equitable defense of in pari delicto, which prevents a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing from recovering damages, was unavailable due to PCI's receivership status. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury awarded Kelley over $500 million in damages, finding BMO liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. BMO appealed, challenging the availability of the in pari delicto defense, among other issues. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the doctrine of in pari delicto barred Kelley’s action against BMO. The court reasoned that while a receiver might not be bound by the fraudulent acts of a corporation's officers under Minnesota law, a bankruptcy trustee stands in the shoes of the debtor and is subject to any defenses that could have been raised against the debtor. Since PCI was a wrongdoer, the defense of in pari delicto was available to BMO in the adversary proceeding. The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to enter judgment in favor of BMO. The cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A." on Justia Law

Mottern v. Baptist Health System, Inc.

2024-09-06T06:00:06-08:00

Lavonne S. Mottern died after receiving a contaminated intravenous injection at Princeton Medical Center, operated by Baptist Health System, Inc. (BHS). Donald J. Mottern, as administrator of Lavonne's estate, filed claims against BHS, Meds I.V., LLC (the manufacturer of the injection), and three individuals associated with Meds I.V. The claims against Meds I.V. and the individuals were settled, leaving only the claims against BHS, which included negligence, wantonness, a claim under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), and a breach of implied warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed all of Mottern's claims against BHS, including the negligence and wantonness claims, which BHS conceded should not have been dismissed. BHS argued that the AEMLD and UCC claims were subject to the Alabama Medical Liability Act (AMLA) and required proof of a breach of the standard of care. The trial court agreed and dismissed these claims, leading to Mottern's appeal. The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and agreed with BHS that all of Mottern's claims, including those under the AEMLD and UCC, are subject to the AMLA's standard-of-care provisions. The court held that the AMLA applies to all actions for medical injury, regardless of the theory of liability, and requires proof of a breach of the standard of care. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the negligence and wantonness claims and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The main holding is that the AMLA's standard-of-care provisions apply to all claims alleging medical injury, including those under the AEMLD and UCC. View "Mottern v. Baptist Health System, Inc." on Justia Law

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. PRC

2024-08-23T06:30:45-08:00

United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) challenged the Postal Regulatory Commission's (Commission) handling of the United States Postal Service's (Postal Service) pricing of competitive products, arguing that the Postal Service underprices these products by not accounting for "peak-season" costs incurred during the holiday season. UPS claimed that these costs, driven by increased demand for package deliveries, should be attributed to competitive products rather than being treated as institutional costs. The Commission denied UPS's petition to initiate rulemaking proceedings and its subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Commission found that UPS's methodology for calculating peak-season costs was flawed and did not produce reliable estimates. It also concluded that the existing cost-attribution framework already accounted for the costs caused by competitive products during the peak season. The Commission explained that the Postal Service's costing models, which use an incremental-cost approach, appropriately attribute costs to competitive products and that the remaining costs are correctly treated as institutional costs. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission's rejection of UPS's methodology was reasonable and well-explained. The court noted that the Commission had addressed UPS's concerns about the Postal Service's costing models and had initiated further proceedings to explore potential updates to the models. The court also rejected UPS's argument that the Commission failed to consider whether peak-season costs are institutional costs uniquely associated with competitive products, noting that this issue was not properly presented in this case. The court denied UPS's petition for review, affirming the Commission's orders. View "United Parcel Service, Inc. v. PRC" on Justia Law

Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

2024-08-22T09:02:07-08:00

Michael R. Rattagan, an Argentinian lawyer, was retained by Uber Technologies, Inc. through its Dutch subsidiaries to assist with launching Uber's ridesharing platform in Argentina. Rattagan also agreed to act as the Dutch subsidiaries' legal representative in Argentina, a role that exposed him to personal liability under Argentinian law. Despite warnings about potential personal exposure, Uber allegedly concealed its plans to launch the platform in Buenos Aires, which led to significant legal and reputational harm to Rattagan when the launch was deemed illegal by local authorities. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Rattagan’s third amended complaint without leave to amend, ruling that his fraudulent concealment claims were barred by the economic loss rule as interpreted in Robinson Helicopter v. Dana Corp. The court concluded that Robinson provided only a narrow exception to the economic loss rule, which did not apply to Rattagan’s claims of fraudulent concealment. The court also found that Rattagan’s negligence and implied covenant claims were time-barred. The Supreme Court of California, upon request from the Ninth Circuit, addressed whether a plaintiff may assert a tort claim for fraudulent concealment arising from or related to the performance of a contract under California law. The court held that a plaintiff may assert such a claim if the elements of the claim can be established independently of the parties’ contractual rights and obligations, and if the tortious conduct exposes the plaintiff to a risk of harm beyond the reasonable contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract. The court clarified that the economic loss rule does not bar tort recovery for fraudulent concealment in these circumstances. View "Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP

2024-08-22T09:02:06-08:00

The City of Los Angeles contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to modernize the billing system for the Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The rollout in 2013 resulted in billing errors, leading the City to sue PwC in 2015, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. Concurrently, a class action was filed against the City by Antwon Jones, represented by attorney Jack Landskroner, for overbilling. Discovery revealed that the City’s special counsel had orchestrated the class action to settle claims favorably for the City while planning to recover costs from PwC. The Los Angeles County Superior Court found the City engaged in extensive discovery abuse to conceal its misconduct, including withholding documents and providing false testimony. The court imposed $2.5 million in monetary sanctions against the City under the Civil Discovery Act, specifically sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, which allow sanctions for discovery misuse. The California Court of Appeal reversed the sanctions, interpreting the Civil Discovery Act as not granting general authority to impose sanctions for discovery misconduct beyond specific discovery methods. The appellate court held that sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize sanctions but must be read in conjunction with other provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court of California reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that the trial court did have the authority to impose monetary sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 for the City’s pattern of discovery abuse. The Supreme Court clarified that these sections provide general authority to sanction discovery misuse, including systemic abuses not covered by specific discovery method provisions. View "City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP" on Justia Law

Taxinet Corp. v. Leon

2024-08-19T06:00:45-08:00

Taxinet Corporation sued Santiago Leon, alleging various claims stemming from a joint effort to secure a government concession for a taxi-hailing app in Mexico City. The district court granted summary judgment for Leon on all claims except for a Florida-law unjust enrichment claim, which went to trial along with Leon’s counterclaims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. The jury awarded Taxinet $300 million for unjust enrichment and Leon $15,000 for negligent misrepresentation. However, the district court granted Leon’s Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, ruling that the damages award was based on inadmissible hearsay and was speculative. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially allowed testimony regarding a $2.4 billion valuation by Goldman Sachs, which was later deemed inadmissible hearsay. The court concluded that without this evidence, there was insufficient support for the jury’s $300 million award. The court also noted that the valuation was speculative and not directly tied to the benefit conferred by Taxinet in 2015. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s Rule 50(b) order, agreeing that the valuation evidence was inadmissible hearsay and that the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the $300 million award. However, the appellate court exercised its discretion to remand for a new trial on the unjust enrichment claim. The court found that Taxinet had presented enough evidence to show that it conferred a benefit on Leon, which he accepted, and that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment. The court also noted that Taxinet could potentially present other evidence of damages in a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on Taxinet’s other claims, ruling that the alleged joint venture agreement was subject to Florida’s statute of frauds, as it could not be completed within a year. Thus, any claims based on the existence of the joint venture agreement were barred. View "Taxinet Corp. v. Leon" on Justia Law

COX V. COINMARKETCAP OPCO, LLC

2024-08-12T08:00:32-08:00

Ryan Cox filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the defendants manipulated the price of a cryptocurrency called HEX by artificially lowering its ranking on CoinMarketCap.com. The defendants include two domestic companies, a foreign company, and three individual officers of the foreign company. Cox claimed that the manipulation caused HEX to trade at lower prices, benefiting the defendants financially. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Cox needed to show the defendants had sufficient contacts with Arizona before invoking the Commodity Exchange Act's nationwide service of process provision. The court found that none of the defendants had sufficient contacts with Arizona. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the Commodity Exchange Act authorizes nationwide service of process independent of its venue requirement. The court concluded that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the U.S. defendants, CoinMarketCap and Binance.US, because they had sufficient contacts with the United States. The court also found that Cox's claims against these defendants were colorable under the Commodity Exchange Act. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the U.S. defendants and remanded for further proceedings. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the foreign defendants, Binance Capital and its officers, due to their lack of sufficient contacts with the United States. The court vacated the dismissal "with prejudice" and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint against the foreign defendants without prejudice. View "COX V. COINMARKETCAP OPCO, LLC" on Justia Law

Children's Health Defense v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

2024-08-09T08:31:07-08:00

Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit organization, alleged that Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) censored its Facebook posts about vaccine safety and efficacy. CHD claimed that Meta’s actions were directed by the federal government, violating the First and Fifth Amendments. CHD also asserted violations of the Lanham Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, the Poynter Institute, and Science Feedback were named as defendants. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed CHD’s complaint. The court found that CHD failed to establish that Meta’s actions constituted state action, a necessary element for First Amendment claims. The court also dismissed the Lanham Act claim, ruling that Meta’s fact-checking labels did not constitute commercial advertising. Additionally, the court rejected the RICO claim, stating that CHD did not adequately allege a fraudulent scheme to obtain money or property. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that CHD did not meet the requirements to treat Meta as a state actor. The court found that Meta’s content moderation policies were independently developed and not compelled by federal law. CHD’s allegations of government coercion and joint action were deemed insufficient. The court also upheld the dismissal of the Lanham Act claim, concluding that Meta’s fact-checking labels were not commercial speech. The RICO claim was dismissed due to a lack of proximate cause between the alleged fraud and CHD’s injury. Judge Collins partially dissented, arguing that CHD could plausibly allege a First Amendment claim for injunctive relief against Meta. However, he agreed with the dismissal of the other claims. The Ninth Circuit’s decision affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Meta. View "Children's Health Defense v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

BioPoint, Inc. v. Dickhaut

2024-07-30T14:00:04-08:00

The case involves BioPoint, Inc., a life sciences consulting firm, which accused Catapult Staffing, LLC, and Andrew Dickhaut of misappropriating trade secrets, confidential business information, and engaging in unfair trade practices. BioPoint alleged that Catapult, with the help of Dickhaut and Leah Attis (a former BioPoint employee and Dickhaut's fiancée), used BioPoint's proprietary information to recruit candidates and secure business from BioPoint's clients, including Vedanta and Shire/Takeda. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts handled the initial proceedings. The jury found Catapult liable for misappropriating BioPoint's trade secrets concerning three candidates and two clients, and for tortious interference with BioPoint's business relationship with one candidate. The jury awarded BioPoint $312,000 in lost profits. The judge, in a subsequent bench trial, found Catapult liable for unjust enrichment and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law (chapter 93A), awarding BioPoint $5,061,444 in damages, which included treble damages for willful and knowing conduct, as well as costs and attorneys' fees. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court largely affirmed the lower court's findings but reduced the judge's award by $157,068, as it found that BioPoint could not recover both lost profits and unjust enrichment for the same placement. The court also reversed the district court's imposition of joint-and-several liability on Andrew Dickhaut, ruling that he could not be held liable for profits he did not receive. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine Dickhaut's individual liability. View "BioPoint, Inc. v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

RightCHOICE Managed Care v. Labmed Services, LLC

2024-07-29T07:30:20-08:00

The case involves a pass-through billing scheme orchestrated by Beau Gertz, Mark Blake, SeroDynamics, and LabMed Services (collectively, the Sero Defendants). They made it appear that blood tests conducted at their Colorado lab were performed at a small hospital in Unionville, Missouri, resulting in a $26.3 million profit. The scheme involved billing Blue Cross using the hospital's provider numbers, despite the tests not being conducted there. Blue Cross paid the hospital $18,053,015 for these tests. The Sero Defendants were found liable for fraud, tortious interference with contract, civil conspiracy, and money had and received. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri oversaw the trial. After five days of evidence, the jury found the Sero Defendants liable and awarded Blue Cross $18,053,015 in compensatory damages and $1.9 million in punitive damages against each of the four Sero Defendants. The Sero Defendants appealed, raising multiple claims of error, including the exclusion of their lead counsel from delivering closing arguments and the admission of certain evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgments, finding no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of lead counsel from closing arguments due to repeated misconduct. The court also upheld the admission of a portion of an audit report, finding it relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of fraud and tortious interference, noting that the Sero Defendants had actual knowledge of the contract between Putnam and Blue Cross and intentionally interfered with it. The court also upheld the jury's award of damages and punitive damages, finding no miscarriage of justice. In conclusion, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgments, rejecting all of the Sero Defendants' claims of error. View "RightCHOICE Managed Care v. Labmed Services, LLC" on Justia Law

F.C. Bloxom Company v. Tom Lange Company International, Inc.

2024-07-25T10:30:48-08:00

F.C. Bloxom Company, a Seattle-based distributor of fresh produce, entered into an agreement with Seven Seas Fruit to deliver three loads of onions to Honduras. The onions required phytosanitary certificates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to clear Honduran customs, but the parties did not explicitly discuss who would procure these certificates. Bloxom believed Seven Seas would handle it, based on past practices and vague assurances. However, the onions were shipped without the necessary certificates, leading to their rejection in Honduras and eventual spoilage upon return to the U.S. Seven Seas initiated administrative proceedings under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) when Bloxom refused to pay for the onions. The Secretary of Agriculture ruled in favor of Seven Seas, finding no evidence that Seven Seas had agreed to procure the certificates. Bloxom appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, which granted summary judgment for Seven Seas. The court found that Bloxom had accepted the onions at the Port of Long Beach and did not revoke that acceptance, thus obligating Bloxom to pay for the onions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Bloxom had accepted the onions by shipping them to Honduras and did not revoke this acceptance even after learning the certificates were missing. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Bloxom's request for additional discovery time, as further discovery would not have changed the outcome. The court concluded that Bloxom was liable for the payment under PACA. View "F.C. Bloxom Company v. Tom Lange Company International, Inc." on Justia Law

Davidson Oil Company v. City of Albuquerque

2024-07-19T10:31:33-08:00

Davidson Oil Company entered into a fixed-price requirements contract with the City of Albuquerque to supply all of the city's fuel needs for a year. Shortly after the contract was signed, fuel market prices dropped significantly. The city requested a price reduction, which Davidson Oil refused, citing potential losses due to hedge contracts it had entered into to protect against market fluctuations. The city then terminated the contract using a termination for convenience clause, prompting Davidson Oil to sue for breach of contract. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment in favor of Davidson Oil, awarding damages for the value of the hedge contracts. The court found that while the city did not breach the explicit terms of the contract, it violated an implied covenant by terminating the contract in bad faith to secure a better bargain elsewhere. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the City of Albuquerque breached the contract by exercising the termination for convenience clause solely to obtain a better deal from another supplier. The court emphasized that such an action violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the contract. The court also upheld the district court's award of damages, including the hedge contract losses, as incidental damages under the Uniform Commercial Code, finding them to be commercially reasonable and directly resulting from the breach. View "Davidson Oil Company v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

Approved Mortgage Corporation v. Truist Bank

2024-06-28T11:30:19-08:00

A mortgage company, Approved Mortgage Corporation, initiated two wire transfers, but the instructions for the transactions were altered by a third party. The funds were transferred to Truist Bank, which deposited the funds into an account it had previously flagged as suspicious. The funds were then withdrawn in the form of cashier’s checks. Approved Mortgage sued Truist, seeking damages in the amount of the transfers. The company asserted two claims under the Indiana Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs the rights, duties, and liabilities of banks and their customers with respect to electronic funds transfers, and a common law negligence claim. The district court dismissed the UCC claims due to lack of privity between Approved Mortgage and Truist, and dismissed the negligence claim as preempted by the UCC. The court held that the UCC does not establish an independent remedy and must be read with another section of the UCC, which entitles a sender to a refund only from the bank which received its payment. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the UCC claims, agreeing with the lower court that the UCC does not establish an independent remedy and must be read with another section of the UCC. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the negligence claim, holding that to the extent the negligence claim arises from Truist’s issuance of the cashier’s checks after Truist credited the funds to the suspicious account, the claim is not preempted by the UCC. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Approved Mortgage Corporation v. Truist Bank" on Justia Law

FTC v. American Screening, LLC

2024-06-27T07:30:21-08:00

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, American Screening, LLC, a Louisiana company, promised buyers that it would ship personal protective equipment (PPE) more quickly than it actually did. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued American Screening, alleging that its shipping policies and practices violated the FTC Act and the Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (MITOR). The company's website contained a shipping policy that stated orders would be processed and shipped within a few days. However, in practice, it took about six weeks for PPE to be shipped after the customer had purchased it. The district court granted the FTC summary judgment and ordered American Screening to return almost $14.7 million to consumers and permanently enjoined it from advertising or selling PPE. American Screening challenged the district court's ordered remedies on appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court rejected American Screening's contention that the court should have considered whether each individual consumer had relied on American Screening's shipping representations and had sustained an injury as a result. The court also disagreed with American Screening's argument that the district court's equitable monetary relief went beyond what was necessary to redress consumers and so amounts to an award of exemplary or punitive damages. The court found that the relief was tailored to ensure that dissatisfied consumers are made whole while also ensuring that American Screening does not have to pay unharmed customers as punishment. Finally, the court rejected American Screening's challenge to the scope of the permanent injunction barring it from advertising or selling PPE. The court agreed with the district court that the egregiousness of American Screening's conduct weighed in favor of the injunction. The court also found that the injunction's effect on American Screening was more modest than its breadth might suggest. View "FTC v. American Screening, LLC" on Justia Law

RSD Leasing, Inc. v. Navistar International Corporation and Navistar, Inc.

2024-06-07T07:33:54-08:00

The case involves RSD Leasing, Inc., a Vermont-based corporation that leases trucks to commercial operators. Between 2008 and 2014, RSD purchased forty trucks manufactured by Navistar International Corp. and Navistar, Inc. from a nonparty dealer. These trucks were equipped with an emission-control system known as an exhaust gas recirculation system. RSD alleged that the system caused the trucks to lose power, break down, and damage other engine components. RSD leased the trucks to other entities for four-to-six-year terms and intended to sell them at the end of the lease term. RSD filed a complaint against Navistar alleging violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), among other claims. In the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, Navistar moved for summary judgment on the VCPA claim, arguing that RSD is not a “consumer” under the VCPA and is therefore barred from recovery. The district court granted summary judgment on the VCPA claim, reasoning that RSD did not qualify as a consumer under the VCPA because it purchased the trucks for resale in the ordinary course of its business. RSD appealed to the Second Circuit, which certified the question of whether RSD qualified as a consumer under the VCPA to the Vermont Supreme Court. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that RSD is not a consumer under the VCPA. The court found that RSD's intent at the time it purchased the trucks was to lease them out and, after each lease term expired, sell them. The court held that the trucks were purchased for resale in the ordinary course of RSD’s business. Therefore, RSD did not qualify as a consumer under the VCPA. The court answered the certified question from the Second Circuit in the negative. View "RSD Leasing, Inc. v. Navistar International Corporation and Navistar, Inc." on Justia Law

Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

2024-04-30T06:30:08-08:00

This case involves Commerzbank AG, a German bank, and U.S. Bank, N.A., an American bank. Commerzbank sued U.S. Bank, alleging that it had failed to fulfill its duties as a trustee for residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) that Commerzbank had purchased. The case revolved around three main issues: whether Commerzbank could bring claims related to trusts with "No Action Clauses"; whether Commerzbank's claims related to certificates held through German entities were timely; and whether Commerzbank could bring claims related to certificates it had sold to third parties. The district court had previously dismissed Commerzbank's claims related to trusts with No Action Clauses, granted judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on the timeliness of Commerzbank's claims related to the German certificates, and denied Commerzbank's claims related to the sold certificates. Commerzbank appealed these decisions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions on the timeliness of the German certificate claims and the denial of the sold certificate claims. However, it vacated the district court's dismissal of Commerzbank's claims related to trusts with No Action Clauses and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that Commerzbank's failure to make pre-suit demands on parties other than trustees could be excused in certain circumstances where these parties are sufficiently conflicted. View "Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Mall Chevrolet Inc v. General Motors LLC

2024-04-26T09:00:12-08:00

A motor vehicle manufacturer, General Motors LLC (GM), sought to terminate its franchise agreement with Mall Chevrolet, Inc., a successful car dealership in New Jersey, after discovering that the dealership had submitted false warranty claims for vehicle repairs. GM also intended to recoup the amounts it paid in disputed warranty claims through a chargeback process. In response, Mall Chevrolet sued GM under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act to prevent the termination of the franchise agreement and the chargebacks. However, the dealership's claims did not survive summary judgment. The District Court found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact – the dealership did submit false claims for warranty repairs – and GM was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of the appealed claims. The dealership then appealed the District Court’s summary-judgment rulings. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The court found that GM had good cause to terminate the franchise agreement because Mall Chevrolet had materially breached the contract by submitting false claims for warranty work. The court also found that the dealership's remaining statutory claims were barred by the defense provided in the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, which allows a franchisor to avoid liability for any claim under the Act if the franchisee has not substantially complied with the franchise agreement. View "Mall Chevrolet Inc v. General Motors LLC" on Justia Law