Contracts - Justia Case Law Summaries

Gum v. Muddy Boyz Drywall

2026-11-06T06:40:54-08:00

The plaintiff entered into an oral lease agreement with the defendant for the rental of a dump trailer for seven days at a flat rate. During the lease period, the plaintiff was arrested while using the trailer, and the trailer was impounded by law enforcement. The defendant retrieved the trailer from the impound lot before the lease term ended. The plaintiff was released from custody before the lease expired and alleged that the defendant breached the contract by repossessing the trailer early and converted his property contained in the trailer, which he claimed to be valuable. The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Muddy Boyz Drywall LLC, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims. The court concluded there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the alleged breach of contract and conversion. After procedural steps involving the dismissal of counterclaims and certification under Rule 54(b), the plaintiff appealed the certified judgment. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case de novo. The Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the terms of the oral contract, whether its conditions were breached, whether the defendant’s performance was rendered impossible, and whether the plaintiff suffered damages. The Court also found that the plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged a conversion claim and that factual disputes existed regarding ownership, value, and the defendant’s disposal of the plaintiff’s property. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Gum v. Muddy Boyz Drywall" on Justia Law

LG Electronics Alabama, Inc. v. Velaro, Inc.

2026-11-06T06:30:44-08:00

The dispute centers on a commercial contract between two companies, one providing live-chat and visitor-monitoring software services and the other purchasing licenses for these services. The contract, first executed in 2008 and amended multiple times, included automatic annual renewal, a termination-for-convenience clause, and a late-payment-charge clause. In 2022, the parties agreed to a two-year term without modifying the termination or late-payment provisions. About seven months into the new term, the buyer exercised its right to terminate for convenience. The seller then invoiced the buyer for the entire remaining balance of the two-year term, asserting that full payment was due despite the early termination. The buyer disputed this, arguing it owed only for services rendered up to the termination date. The case was tried without a jury in the Madison Circuit Court. The trial court found the termination-for-convenience clause ambiguous regarding payment obligations upon early termination. Relying on witness testimony and email correspondence to resolve this ambiguity, the court concluded the buyer owed the full remaining contract balance and imposed a late-payment charge, also awarding the seller its costs and attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether the contract’s termination and late-payment provisions were ambiguous. The court held that the termination-for-convenience clause was unambiguous: the buyer was obligated to pay only for services received up to the termination date, not the full contract term. The court further found the late-payment-charge clause inapplicable because the invoice in question was disputed and not for a quarterly period as required by the contract. As a result, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court’s judgment, including the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "LG Electronics Alabama, Inc. v. Velaro, Inc." on Justia Law

Priority One Bank v. Hall

2026-11-06T02:18:07-08:00

Derek and Keisha Hall hired Jose Silva to construct their new home and financed the project through Priority One Bank, where Harvey Lott served as the loan officer. The Halls later discovered construction defects and alleged that Silva, Lott, and the bank engaged in a secret arrangement for personal profit, including unauthorized loan disbursements and a failure to conduct proper inspections. The Halls also claimed Silva lacked a contractor’s license and that the relationship between Silva and Lott involved improper payments. Both Lott and the bank denied these allegations, asserting that bank inspections were for their own benefit and that loan advances sometimes occurred before work was completed, in line with their agreement. The Halls brought several claims against the bank, Lott, and Silva in the Jefferson Davis County Circuit Court, including breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy. In response, the bank and Lott sought summary judgment, but the circuit court denied their motion, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained. Subsequently, the Halls moved to strike a provision in the loan agreement, arguing it was unconscionable and deprived them of legal remedies. The circuit court granted this motion, holding the provision was void, invalid, and unconscionable. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case on interlocutory appeal. It held that the Halls’ “Motion to Strike Contract Provision” was not an appropriate procedural vehicle to challenge the enforceability of a contract provision, as motions to strike under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) are limited to pleadings, not contract clauses. The court reversed the circuit court’s order striking the provision and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing that any challenge to the provision’s enforceability must follow the proper procedures for dispositive motions. View "Priority One Bank v. Hall" on Justia Law

LEGACY FUNERAL HOLDINGS OF NEV., LLC VS. OUZENIAN

2026-11-05T07:36:29-08:00

Three siblings contracted with a funeral home for the cremation of their mother’s remains. The transaction involved two documents: a Purchase Agreement, signed only by one sibling, and an Authorization for Cremation, signed by all three. The Purchase Agreement contained an arbitration clause. The siblings later claimed that the funeral home failed to provide notice and an opportunity to cancel the cremation, as they had allegedly been promised. After the cremation was performed without further notice, the siblings and the decedent’s estate sued the funeral home for breach of contract and various torts. The case was first heard by the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County. The funeral home moved to compel arbitration under the agreement. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that factual issues remained as to the enforceability of the agreement and the arbitration provision. Specifically, the court found uncertainty regarding the right to cancel and determined that only the signing sibling could potentially be bound by the arbitration clause, pending resolution of factual disputes. The court also concluded that the nonsignatory siblings and the estate were not bound by the arbitration clause, rejecting the funeral home’s equitable estoppel arguments. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed whether the enforceability of the contract containing an arbitration clause must be decided by the arbitrator under NRS 38.219(3), regardless of whether a delegation provision was invoked below, and whether nonsignatories could be bound to arbitrate under equitable estoppel. The Supreme Court held that under NRS 38.219(3), the arbitrator must resolve the contract’s enforceability, and the district court erred in denying arbitration on that basis. The court further held that the two nonsignatory siblings are equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration because they seek a direct benefit from the agreement, but the estate is not bound. The order was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "LEGACY FUNERAL HOLDINGS OF NEV., LLC VS. OUZENIAN" on Justia Law

Thomas v. Leyline Publishing

2026-11-04T10:30:08-08:00

A dispute arose between two parties who had entered into a contractual agreement to jointly develop and market a therapeutic tabletop role-playing game. The plaintiffs, including the individual who originally developed the game and his company, had created intellectual property related to the game and later formed a business entity to market and distribute it. The defendants, including a psychologist and his companies, operate a business that integrates therapeutic practices with “geek” culture, and they sought to develop and sell the game using their resources. The parties executed a second licensing agreement (SLA) that allowed the defendants to use, market, and sell the game content, while the plaintiffs retained ownership of the intellectual property until a future sale was negotiated. Disagreements arose after a potential change to a third-party game license led the plaintiffs to propose significant changes to the game, which the defendants opposed due to business concerns. Communication broke down, and the plaintiffs eventually demanded that the defendants cease use of the game and related intellectual property. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas found in favor of the defendants, granting summary judgment and dismissing all claims. The district court determined that the SLA was a valid, binding contract authorizing the defendants to use the content, and that the plaintiffs’ failure to bill for certain services did not constitute a breach allowing them to terminate the agreement. The court also rejected claims related to derivative works, trademark use, and the use of the individual plaintiff’s name and likeness, finding the actions authorized by the contract. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that the SLA was valid and enforceable, that it authorized the defendants’ use of the game content and associated intellectual property, and that the plaintiffs’ claims for intellectual property infringement, name-and-image misappropriation, and unjust enrichment were properly dismissed. View "Thomas v. Leyline Publishing" on Justia Law

SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC

2026-11-03T07:30:04-08:00

Two companies that compete in the financial technology sector became involved in a dispute after one, SS&C (which had acquired Advent), alleged that its competitor, Arcesium, misappropriated trade secrets from its Geneva portfolio accounting software. Previously, Advent and Arcesium had entered into a Hosted Reseller Agreement (HRA) that allowed Arcesium to sublicense Geneva to its own customers and provide related services, subject to confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions. The HRA specifically prohibited Arcesium from using Geneva to develop competing products. After the HRA expired, SS&C alleged that Arcesium used its access to Geneva to develop competing software, Trinity and Nautilus, by copying proprietary features and methods, in violation of their agreements. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed SS&C’s trade secret misappropriation claims, holding that while SS&C sufficiently alleged the existence of trade secrets, it did not adequately allege that Arcesium misappropriated those secrets. The district court also denied SS&C’s motion to vacate the dismissal and to amend its complaint, after considering documents referenced in the complaint and crediting Arcesium’s interpretations of those documents. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s order de novo. The appellate court held that SS&C’s complaint contained sufficient factual allegations to plausibly state a claim for trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, including direct and circumstantial allegations of use and improper acquisition. The Second Circuit found that the district court improperly engaged in fact-finding and inappropriately credited Arcesium’s version of contested facts at the pleading stage. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the trade secret misappropriation claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. Arcesium LLC" on Justia Law

SCHRAMMEL & WARD v. COLYER HEREFORDS AND ANGUS, INC.

2026-11-03T06:43:22-08:00

Two Oklahoma cattle ranchers entered into an agreement with an Idaho-based cattle breeder concerning the ownership and profits from a Hereford bull named Guardian. The arrangement involved the Plaintiffs bidding on Guardian at an Oklahoma auction, acquiring a partial ownership interest, and receiving a share of profits from the sale of Guardian’s semen. The agreement also contemplated that Guardian would spend part of each year in Oklahoma. After the auction, Guardian remained in the Defendant’s custody out of state. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant’s negligent care led to Guardian’s death and sought compensation and an accounting of profits. The District Court of Oklahoma County dismissed the Plaintiffs’ action for lack of both general and specific personal jurisdiction, finding that the Defendant’s contacts with Oklahoma were insufficient. After the judgment, a dispute arose over the timeliness of the Plaintiffs’ appeal, because proof of service of the judgment was not immediately filed. The Defendant moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, arguing the appellate deadline had passed. The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that the Plaintiffs’ appeal was timely, as the thirty-day period to appeal began when proof of service was filed, not when the judgment was originally served. The Supreme Court further found that, although Oklahoma lacked general jurisdiction over the Defendant, specific personal jurisdiction existed because the Defendant purposefully directed activities toward Oklahoma by facilitating the auction transaction and ongoing custodial arrangement. Plaintiffs’ claims “arose out of or related to” these contacts. The Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal, reversed the district court’s order dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "SCHRAMMEL & WARD v. COLYER HEREFORDS AND ANGUS, INC." on Justia Law

Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC v. Hagestad

2026-10-29T15:30:57-08:00

A restaurant group based in Orange County provided catering services to a client and his family during the Masters golf tournament in Georgia. The parties discussed a menu for seven days but did not sign a written contract or discuss the cost beforehand. The restaurant group ended up providing meals and services for five days, serving around 25 guests per meal. After the event, the group sent an invoice for nearly $75,000, which the client disputed and refused to pay, leading to an increase in the invoice amount. The client maintained that he had been overcharged and would have made other arrangements had he known the cost. The Superior Court of Orange County heard the breach of contract case. During discovery, the client denied a request for admission that he had contracted with the restaurant group for seven days of service. At trial, the jury found in favor of the restaurant group but awarded a lesser amount than invoiced. After the verdict, the restaurant group sought cost-of-proof attorney’s fees under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 for the client’s denial of the request for admission, as well as court reporter costs. The trial court awarded only a small portion of the requested attorney’s fees, explaining that the restaurant group had not properly identified which fees related specifically to proving contract formation. The court also struck the entire amount claimed for court reporter costs, finding the group had not provided sufficient proof that the costs were recoverable. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed both the fee and costs orders. The court held that the restaurant group was entitled to some cost-of-proof fees because the client denied a request for admission that was later proved true, but the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding only a limited amount due to the group’s failure to segregate relevant fees. The court also upheld the denial of court reporter costs for lack of supporting documentation. View "Hanna Carroll Restaurant Group LLC v. Hagestad" on Justia Law

Bennink v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. LLC

2026-10-29T11:30:10-08:00

The plaintiff worked for a telecommunications company, first as a contractor and later as an employee. His primary responsibilities involved designing, developing, and documenting the company's interactive voice response (IVR) system, an automated system that routes customer calls. He led projects integrating and updating this system and served as the main point of contact for related IT services. Over time, his workload increased significantly, leading him to work long hours. After unsuccessful attempts to resolve concerns about his workload, he resigned. After his employment ended, the plaintiff sued the company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime and breach of contract for not being paid $75 per hour for all hours worked. The company argued he was exempt from FLSA overtime requirements as a computer employee and that no valid contract for hourly pay existed. The district court granted summary judgment to the company, finding him exempt under the FLSA's computer employee exemption and concluding no contract existed. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court found that the plaintiff’s primary duties involved the design, development, and documentation of the IVR system, meeting the statutory criteria for the computer employee exemption under the FLSA, regardless of his lack of formal computer science education. The court also agreed with the lower court that the offer letter did not constitute a contract and that the subsequent at-will employment relationship did not create enforceable terms for hourly pay beyond forty hours. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Bennink v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. LLC" on Justia Law

Whittington v. Daniels

2026-10-29T06:11:20-08:00

The appellants entered into a contract with the appellee for the construction of a house in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, and paid a $10,000 deposit. After terminating the contract in October 2015, the appellants expected the return of their deposit, but the appellee retained it. On April 10, 2017, the appellants filed a complaint in magisterial district court (MDJ court) seeking the return of the deposit. The MDJ court entered judgment in their favor, awarding the deposit amount plus costs. The appellee then timely appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which required the appellants to file a new complaint within twenty days. The appellants failed to do so, and the case became dormant until July 2020, when, in response to a notice of intent to terminate, the appellants filed a common pleas court complaint including a conversion claim. The appellee asserted that this claim was barred by the statute of limitations. At trial, the jury found in favor of the appellants on conversion and determined the claim accrued on October 15, 2015. However, the trial court granted a directed verdict for the appellee, holding the complaint was not timely filed within the two-year statute of limitations. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, holding that the filing of an MDJ complaint tolls the statute of limitations only during the pendency of the MDJ case and that the statute begins to run again after the expiration of the twenty-day period to file a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court’s holding. It held that the filing of an MDJ complaint tolls the statute of limitations for any cause of action based on the factual averments in that complaint, including during any appeal, and that the subsequent filing of a common pleas court complaint is a continuation of the original action, not the commencement of a new one. The appellants’ claim was thus not time barred. View "Whittington v. Daniels" on Justia Law

BURKETT v DRYJA

2026-10-28T10:01:03-08:00

The dispute arose between two neighboring homeowners in a Tucson subdivision governed by a homeowners’ association and subject to recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). The plaintiff alleged that noise and vibrations from the defendants’ newly installed air conditioning unit constituted a nuisance in violation of an anti-nuisance provision within the CC&Rs and sought both injunctive relief and damages. The CC&Rs also included a fee-shifting provision entitling the prevailing party in enforcement proceedings to recover attorney fees and costs. The Superior Court in Pima County held a bench trial and ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that while the noise was annoying, it did not rise to the level of an actionable nuisance or a violation of the CC&Rs. The court also concluded that the plaintiff did not prove any breach of contract or obligation by the defendants. Although the court recognized the CC&Rs as creating contractual relationships, it denied the defendants’ request for attorney fees, reasoning that the plaintiff’s claim was essentially a tort claim for nuisance, not a contract claim. The Court of Appeals, Division Two, affirmed, relying on the view that the anti-nuisance provision in the CC&Rs merely mirrored existing tort duties and did not independently support a contractual fee award. The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case and held that an anti-nuisance covenant in recorded CC&Rs constitutes a contractual obligation that can be enforced between homeowners, even if the conduct also constitutes a tort. The Court further held that the fee-shifting provision applies to actions enforcing such covenants. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion, reversed the Superior Court’s denial of attorney fees to the defendants, and remanded for determination of reasonable attorney fees. View "BURKETT v DRYJA" on Justia Law

Armitage v. DeGroot

2026-10-28T06:31:59-08:00

A couple agreed to sell their ten-acre property, including a cabin and all personal property on site, to another couple for a total of $450,000. The buyers drafted two separate documents: one for the real estate ($350,000) and one for the personal property ($100,000). Both parties signed these documents. After closing and transfer of the real property, the buyers paid the $350,000 for the real estate but did not pay the $100,000 for the personal property. Upon taking possession, the buyers discovered some personal property items missing, some of which were later found to have been taken by a relative of the sellers. The sellers sued for breach of contract to recover the $100,000 for the personal property. The District Court of the Second Judicial District of Idaho conducted a bench trial and found in favor of the sellers. The court found the sellers had substantially complied with their obligations, determined the missing items were not a material breach, and awarded the sellers $96,538 (offsetting the value of missing items), plus attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3). The buyers moved for reconsideration, arguing that the obligation to pay for the personal property was extinguished by the doctrine of merger at closing. The district court denied the motion, holding the promise to pay for the personal property was collateral and survived closing. The court later granted attorney fees upon reconsideration. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Court held that the promise to pay for personal property was collateral to the real estate deed and intended by the parties to survive closing, so the merger doctrine did not apply. The Court also held that Idaho Code section 12-120(3) independently authorizes attorney fees for actions on a “bill” or bill of sale, not just for commercial transactions. The sellers were awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal. View "Armitage v. DeGroot" on Justia Law

In re Marriage of Kearns

2026-10-27T14:34:54-08:00

A married couple executed a Marital and Property Settlement Agreement (MPSA) in 2012, which allocated their marital debts, including a Parent PLUS student loan, to the husband. He agreed to be solely responsible for the debt and indemnify his former wife. While he resolved other debts, he did not pay the Parent PLUS loan until the wife sought contempt in 2022. The parties then stipulated that the husband would make monthly loan payments and apply proceeds from a business sale toward the loan. The wife remained the borrower, but the husband assumed responsibility for payments. After further nonpayment, the wife again sought contempt in 2024. The Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, held the husband in contempt for failing to pay monthly amounts due in August and September 2024, denied his request for expanded account access, entered an immediately collectible judgment for the entire unpaid loan balance in favor of the wife, and awarded her attorney fees. The court determined that the husband had willfully failed to comply with his payment obligation and found that his unauthorized changes to the account justified restricted access. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the denial of unrestricted account access and the contempt determination based on August and September 2024 nonpayments. It also affirmed the award of $3,237.50 in attorney fees to the wife. However, the Supreme Court vacated the full-balance judgment for the loan, holding that the parties’ agreements did not authorize immediate acceleration of the entire debt based on missed monthly payments. The Court remanded for determination of an enforcement remedy consistent with the agreements and applicable law, and for reasonable appellate attorney fees, while denying appellate sanctions. The underlying allocation of debt and adjudicated obligations from June 2024 remain undisturbed. View "In re Marriage of Kearns" on Justia Law

Indeck Power Equipment Co. v Ashley Energy LLC

2026-10-27T12:00:06-08:00

Ashley Energy, an energy company in Missouri, experienced flooding at its plant and leased a boiler and water treatment trailer from Indeck Power Equipment to maintain operations. The lease required Indeck to provide a “like-new” boiler and new trailer, and Ashley to operate and maintain the equipment according to industry standards, specifically ABMA guidelines, and pay for repairs beyond ordinary wear and tear. After the boiler was returned, Indeck discovered scale and debris, attempted to clean it, and ultimately sued Ashley, alleging breach of contract and seeking over $3 million in damages. Ashley had previously sued Indeck in Missouri state court, but that case was dismissed due to a forum selection clause. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois conducted a jury trial. The jury found that Indeck had performed its contractual obligations and that Ashley had breached the contract. However, the jury concluded that Indeck failed to prove it had sustained damages as a result of Ashley’s breach, finding insufficient evidence that Ashley’s actions directly caused damage beyond normal wear and tear. Indeck’s post-trial motions for a new trial and for attorneys’ and experts’ fees were denied, with the district court explaining that the verdict could be rationally explained by evidence that Indeck’s own actions or equipment contributed to any damage or that no damage beyond ordinary wear and tear occurred. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the jury’s verdict was not irreconcilably inconsistent and was supported by plausible explanations from the record, and that Indeck was not entitled to attorneys’ fees as a non-prevailing party under the lease’s provisions. View "Indeck Power Equipment Co. v Ashley Energy LLC" on Justia Law

Northeast Wyoming Regional Airport Board v. GateOne Gillette, LLC

2026-10-23T07:13:02-08:00

GateOne Gillette, LLC entered into a 20-year lease with the Northeast Wyoming Regional Airport Board to serve as the fixed base operator at the Campbell County airport, providing services such as flight instruction and aircraft maintenance. The Board was responsible for maintaining certain airport facilities and for shared maintenance of the fuel farm. In March 2025, the Board issued a notice terminating GateOne’s lease, asserting breach of contract, and subsequently took over GateOne’s operations and solicited its employees. GateOne filed a lawsuit against the Board in the District Court of Campbell County, seeking declaratory relief, damages for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Board moved to dismiss the suit under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that it was immune from suit under both the terms of the lease and the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA). The district court denied the Board’s motion, finding that the lease was ambiguous regarding the preservation of governmental immunity and could reasonably be read in more than one way. The Board appealed that denial. The Supreme Court of Wyoming first determined that the order denying the motion to dismiss based on governmental immunity was immediately appealable because immunity under the WGCA constitutes immunity from suit, not merely a defense to liability. On review, the Supreme Court held that the lease was ambiguous as to whether it preserved the Board’s immunity from contract claims, noting conflicting provisions and the need to consider extrinsic evidence. The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded for further proceedings to resolve the ambiguity using extrinsic evidence, as necessary. View "Northeast Wyoming Regional Airport Board v. GateOne Gillette, LLC" on Justia Law

Davis v. Fresno Unified School Dist.

2026-10-22T13:01:00-08:00

A taxpayer challenged a California school district’s use of a “lease-leaseback” arrangement with a contractor for constructing a new middle school. The plaintiff alleged the $36 million construction contract violated California’s competitive bidding statutes and conflict of interest laws. The district had selected the contractor from a prequalified pool and entered into preconstruction agreements, then executed lease-leaseback contracts for the project. The project was funded entirely by the proceeds of bonds approved by local voters, not by contractor-provided financing. Previously, the Superior Court of Fresno County dismissed the complaint, but on the first appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, held that the plaintiff had stated claims for both competitive bidding and conflict of interest violations. After further proceedings and another appeal, the California Supreme Court confirmed that the validation statutes did not bar the action, and the case proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court found the lease-leaseback arrangement qualified for the statutory exception to competitive bidding and rejected the conflict of interest claim, concluding the contractor was not an “officer” or “employee” for purposes of the conflict of interest statute. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, held that the conflict of interest claim was properly rejected because the contractor did not act as an officer or employee of the district. However, the court concluded that the competitive bidding exception did not apply because the project was financed by public bonds, not by the contractor. The court held that the proper remedy under Education Code section 17406(d)—enacted after the initial appeal—was to require the contractor to disgorge its net profit ($236,129), not the full contract amount. The judgment was reversed in part, and the trial court was directed to enter judgment requiring the contractor to refund its profit to the district. View "Davis v. Fresno Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

Quality Proc Svc v. Whitney Oil

2026-10-21T17:28:51-08:00

Whitney Oil and Gas, which operates oil and gas production platforms off the Louisiana coast, entered into a Master Service Agreement (MSA) with Quality Process Services (QPS) in 2016. Under the MSA, QPS provided contract laborers, primarily production operators, who routinely used vessels to reach Whitney’s platforms where they performed maintenance and monitoring tasks. In 2021, after Hurricane Ida, a Whitney employee was injured while being transported on a Whitney vessel operated by a QPS employee. The injured employee sued both companies in Louisiana state court, prompting Whitney to file a federal limitation action, with QPS seeking indemnity from Whitney under the MSA for injuries to Whitney’s employees. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held a bench trial. The court found that the MSA was not a maritime contract because the parties did not expect vessels to play a substantial role in the completion of the contract beyond transporting workers. It concluded that under Louisiana law, the indemnity provision was unenforceable and dismissed QPS’s indemnity claim with prejudice. The court also ruled that Whitney was entitled to attorney fees under the MSA’s prevailing-party provision but deferred setting the amount until after any appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s judgment that the MSA was not a maritime contract, emphasizing that the parties’ expectations were that vessels served only as transportation and did not directly aid the performance of the contracted work. As a result, Louisiana law applied, and the indemnity provision was voided. The Fifth Circuit also dismissed without prejudice QPS’s appeal of the attorney-fee ruling, since the amount had not yet been determined. View "Quality Proc Svc v. Whitney Oil" on Justia Law

Dworman v. PHH Mortgage Services

2026-10-21T17:28:40-08:00

After defaulting on his home mortgage, the plaintiff entered into a loan modification agreement with his mortgage servicer. The agreement allowed for a portion of the loan balance to be forgiven if the plaintiff made timely payments and remained in good standing. However, the plaintiff quickly fell behind on the modified payment schedule and remained delinquent for an extended period. During this time, the servicer issued an IRS Form 1099-C to the plaintiff, listing the amount eligible for forgiveness as a "cancellation of debt." The plaintiff subsequently argued that this form, along with certain communications from the servicer and its successor, meant the debt had been forgiven, even though he had not met the agreement’s conditions. The case was originally filed in Massachusetts state court and removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on diversity grounds. The defendants moved for summary judgment after discovery. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that further discovery was needed, particularly regarding the servicer’s tax filings, to support his claim that the debt had been forgiven. The district court denied the plaintiff’s request for additional discovery, finding the requested information irrelevant, and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that the issuance of an IRS Form 1099-C does not, by itself, discharge a debt if the conditions for forgiveness were not met. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying additional discovery and concluded there was no material factual dispute as to whether the debt had been forgiven. The grant of summary judgment to the defendants was affirmed. View "Dworman v. PHH Mortgage Services" on Justia Law

Zhu Zhai Holdings Limited v Ivankovich

2026-10-20T13:30:10-08:00

Two individuals loaned money to entities for which a third person guaranteed repayment. When those loans went unpaid, the lenders obtained a default judgment of approximately $4.5 million against the guarantor. The guarantor did not pay the judgment, leading the lenders to initiate post-judgment proceedings to discover and collect his assets. They issued a citation on funds previously held in escrow by a lender as security for loans on properties owned by entities the guarantor controlled. After property sales fully repaid the loans, the escrowed funds remained frozen pending resolution of who was entitled to them. Several limited liability companies (LLCs) associated with the guarantor, as well as his estranged wife, intervened, each asserting claims to the funds. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois appointed a Special Master to determine the ownership of the escrowed funds. After discovery and a hearing, the Special Master found that the funds belonged to the guarantor, not the LLCs, based on evidence that he exercised complete control over similar proceeds and used them for personal expenses without objection from the LLCs. The district court adopted these findings and ordered further proceedings to determine if the wife’s claim for unpaid child and spousal support had priority. Before those proceedings concluded, the wife and the lenders agreed to split the funds, and the district court approved this resolution, over objections from the LLCs. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over the LLCs’ appeal and dismissed the guarantor’s appeal for lack of standing. The court affirmed the district court’s determination that the escrowed funds belonged to the guarantor and could be used to satisfy the judgment. It also rejected the argument that the proceedings improperly pierced the corporate veil or violated procedural requirements under Illinois law. View "Zhu Zhai Holdings Limited v Ivankovich" on Justia Law

Chiaro v Methodist Hospitals, Inc.

2026-10-20T08:00:08-08:00

Several patients brought class action lawsuits against Indiana health care providers, alleging that their medical information was improperly shared with Facebook through the use of the Meta Pixel embedded in online patient portals. The plaintiffs asserted state law claims including breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and Indiana Wiretapping Act. The health care providers had established these online portals to comply with federal regulations encouraging electronic health records, which offered incentive payments and imposed penalties for non-compliance. The health care providers removed the cases from Indiana state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, arguing that federal jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). They claimed they were “acting under” the Department of Health and Human Services when creating and maintaining their portals. District courts in multiple consolidated cases rejected this argument, finding that the providers did not meet the statutory requirements for removal under § 1442(a)(1). The courts concluded that while the providers were highly regulated and incentivized by federal policies, their actions did not amount to performing basic governmental tasks or operating under the direction of a federal officer. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals de novo. It held that compliance with federal regulations and incentives for patient portals did not constitute “acting under” a federal officer. The court found that the health care providers’ relationship to the federal government lacked the unusually close supervision and delegation required for federal officer removal. The court affirmed the district courts’ remand orders, holding that federal subject matter jurisdiction was not established under § 1442(a)(1). View "Chiaro v Methodist Hospitals, Inc." on Justia Law

Samuel Lee Services LLC v. Bangeman

2026-10-20T06:32:29-08:00

A Montana company that provides mold remediation services was contacted to perform emergency work at a home in Idaho. The homeowner’s father, a long-time acquaintance of the company’s owner, facilitated the arrangement. Although the company disclosed it was not registered as a contractor in Idaho, it entered into an agreement with the homeowner and completed the remediation work. The company billed over $44,000 for its services, but the homeowner, after receiving insurance funds, refused to pay, claiming the work was not properly completed and instead used the funds to pay another contractor. The company then filed a complaint for unjust enrichment in the District Court of the First Judicial District of Idaho, Bonner County. The homeowner moved to dismiss, arguing that under the Idaho Contractor Registration Act (ICRA), unregistered contractors are barred from bringing actions in Idaho courts to recover compensation for work performed. The district court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding that the company’s failure to register precluded its claim and that no equitable exception applied. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of ICRA unambiguously bars unregistered contractors from seeking compensation through Idaho courts, even under equitable theories such as unjust enrichment, when the claim is against a member of the general public—the party the statute is designed to protect. The court affirmed the district court’s decision and declined to award attorney fees on appeal, concluding that the appeal raised legitimate legal questions, though the arguments did not prevail. View "Samuel Lee Services LLC v. Bangeman" on Justia Law

Seiwald v. Irias

2026-10-16T15:01:40-08:00

The case concerns a dispute between two individuals who cohabited for nearly a decade before marrying. During their relationship, the parties agreed to pool their efforts and share any property acquired during this period, which included contributions to one party’s government pension. After the relationship ended, the non-employee party claimed entitlement to a share of the pension accrued during their pre-marital cohabitation, based on their agreement. After separation and the filing of a civil action for breach of contract, the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco consolidated the proceedings. The court found that the parties had an implied-in-fact contract—known as a Marvin agreement—to share equally in all property acquired during their relationship, including pension contributions. The trial court held that the non-employee party was entitled to an equal share of the pension benefits accrued during the period of cohabitation, even though the parties were not married at the time. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed only the question of whether Public Utilities Code section 12337 barred the non-employee party from receiving a share of the pension. The appellate court held that section 12337, which generally renders such pensions unassignable and exempt from execution, does not preclude enforcement of an ownership interest in the pension arising from a Marvin agreement. The court reasoned that the non-employee party’s claim was not as a creditor but as an owner by virtue of contract, and therefore section 12337’s restrictions did not apply. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, concluding that the non-employee party was entitled to an equal share of the pension benefits accrued during the Marvin period. View "Seiwald v. Irias" on Justia Law

McCain v. Mary Mahoney's

2026-10-16T09:30:08-08:00

A customer dined at a Mississippi restaurant specializing in local seafood, ordering premium snapper on three occasions between 2013 and 2018. The restaurant, along with its supplier and several managers, was later criminally charged for a long-running scheme to mislabel imported frozen fish as locally caught premium fish. All parties pled guilty, admitting to substituting and fraudulently selling over 29 tons of imported fish as local species during a multi-year period. The customer alleged that he paid high prices for what he believed to be premium Gulf snapper, but was instead served inferior imported fish, and he brought a class action seeking damages under federal and state law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), finding no cognizable Article III injury. The court reasoned that since the plaintiff consumed his meals without complaint, paying for fish he would not have otherwise purchased was not a concrete injury. It also found the allegations insufficiently particularized, as the plaintiff did not specifically allege that imported fish was served on the dates he dined or that all snapper sold on those dates was misbranded. The court denied motions to amend the judgment and complaint, concluding any amendments would be futile. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff plausibly suffered a concrete and particularized injury in fact under Article III, either by being fraudulently induced to purchase inferior fish or by overpaying due to fraud. The court concluded that the allegations of widespread and routine fish substitution at the restaurant plausibly affected the plaintiff’s meals, particularly his August 21, 2018, visit. The denial of leave to amend was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McCain v. Mary Mahoney's" on Justia Law

In re: Southern Logistics, Inc. v. UOP, LLC

2026-10-16T05:30:59-08:00

This dispute arose from a series of business dealings among several corporate parties involved in the repurposing of ammonium nitrate water from a landfill in Mobile County, Alabama. The plaintiffs, two corporate entities, accused certain defendants of disrupting long-standing contracts and business relationships by sharing confidential information in violation of a 2013 contract. The alleged conduct resulted in the plaintiffs being cut out of relationships they had developed over many years. The 2013 contract at issue contained a forum-selection clause requiring that disputes be brought exclusively in courts located in New York, New York. After the plaintiffs initiated suit in the Monroe Circuit Court, the defendants sought dismissal for improper venue, citing the forum-selection clause and arguing in the alternative that, even if venue were proper in Alabama, it was not proper in Monroe County. The defendants also asserted that the plaintiffs’ tort claims failed to state a claim. While these motions were pending, disputes arose over the scope and timing of discovery. The trial court issued a series of discovery-related orders, culminating in a January 6, 2026, order requiring the defendants to provide broad discovery, including depositions and responses to interrogatories, before the motion to dismiss would be heard. The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the defendants’ petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court held that venue is a threshold issue that should be addressed as soon as practicable and that the trial court exceeded its discretion by requiring the defendants to participate in extensive merits-based discovery before ruling on the venue motion. The Court directed the trial court to vacate its January discovery order and to rule expeditiously on the motion to dismiss. Pending that ruling, any discovery must be limited to issues relevant to venue. View "In re: Southern Logistics, Inc. v. UOP, LLC" on Justia Law

Commercial Properties, Inc. v. Charalambidou

2026-10-16T05:30:58-08:00

A landlord and a tenant, a ballet studio, entered into two lease agreements for suites in a shopping center. The leases contained provisions for indemnification, default, and attorney fees. After the ballet studio vacated the premises, alleging that the landlord failed to address mold issues that caused personal injuries to two individuals associated with the studio and damage to the studio’s property, the studio and the individuals filed a multi-count complaint against the landlord. The landlord counterclaimed for unpaid rent and sought defense and indemnity from the ballet studio for the claims made by the individuals. The Montgomery Circuit Court addressed a partial summary judgment motion filed by the landlord, which concerned only the claims between the landlord and the ballet studio, not the individuals’ personal injury claims. The ballet studio and the individuals filed a response to the summary judgment motion, but it was submitted one business day late. The trial court granted the landlord’s motion to strike the late response and, later, denied the plaintiffs’ attempt to resubmit the same response. The court then entered a partial summary judgment in favor of the landlord. Subsequently, the court certified this partial summary judgment as final under Rule 54(b), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, but also included language purporting to dismiss the entire case. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court’s orders striking the untimely response and denying its resubmission, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court also affirmed the certification of the partial summary judgment as final but reversed the dismissal of the entire case, noting that claims by the individuals against the landlord and the determination of damages owed to the landlord remained unresolved. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Commercial Properties, Inc. v. Charalambidou" on Justia Law

General Motors v. Nebraska Motor Vehicle Ind. Lic. Bd.

2026-10-16T05:08:04-08:00

This case concerns a dispute between an automobile manufacturer and a local dealership. In 2019, the manufacturer sought to terminate its franchise agreements with the dealership, citing years of poor sales performance and alleged breaches of franchise terms. The dealership, which had previously struggled due to inventory shortages and difficulties following the manufacturer’s bankruptcy and subsequent lack of support, argued that its poor performance was primarily due to insufficient vehicle allocation from the manufacturer. After receiving a termination notice, the dealership improved its sales and operational practices, particularly following the assignment of a new district manager. The Nebraska Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Board held a hearing in 2023, considering evidence from both sides, including expert testimony and performance data. The Board found that the dealership’s underperformance was largely attributable to the manufacturer’s failure to allocate sufficient inventory and that the improvements made by the dealership following increased support were significant. The Board determined that there was no good cause to terminate the franchise and that the manufacturer's claims were pretextual. The manufacturer then petitioned for judicial review in the District Court for Lancaster County. The district court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that the manufacturer failed to prove either good cause for termination or that another franchise would promptly become effective in the community. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case for errors on the record. It held that the Board and its executive members were not proper parties to the review proceeding, as the Board acted as a neutral factfinding body. The court concluded that due process was not violated by the Board’s composition and that substantial evidence supported the findings below. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, upholding the denial of the manufacturer’s application to terminate the franchise agreements. View "General Motors v. Nebraska Motor Vehicle Ind. Lic. Bd." on Justia Law

Seacor Marine v. GOL

2026-10-15T15:30:05-08:00

SEACOR Marine, L.L.C., a company that owns and operates marine vessels, entered into a Brokerage Agreement with GOL, L.L.C., a broker connecting vessel owners with oil and gas companies. Under this agreement, GOL acted as SEACOR’s agent to obtain charters, and was responsible for remitting payments to SEACOR if charterers paid GOL. GOL brokered SEACOR’s vessels to Cox Operating, LLC, invoicing Cox for $2.7 million plus a brokerage fee. Cox did not pay, subsequently filing for bankruptcy. GOL submitted a prepetition claim in Cox’s bankruptcy, which included SEACOR’s invoices. The bankruptcy court permitted Cox to pay $13 million toward GOL’s prepetition claim to incentivize continued services during bankruptcy, with GOL agreeing to use these funds for claims secured by liens, including SEACOR’s. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of GOL. It found GOL was not obligated to pay SEACOR from the $13 million, reasoning that GOL had not received payment specifically for SEACOR’s invoices, and that the Trade Agreement required payment only to vendors continuing to provide services to Cox. The court also determined GOL had fulfilled its duty to make reasonable efforts to collect from Cox and dismissed SEACOR’s claims, denying reconsideration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether any part of the $13 million payment was for SEACOR’s services and whether GOL breached its contractual and fiduciary duties by not remitting payment to SEACOR. The court found the Trade Agreement did not prohibit GOL from paying SEACOR and reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Seacor Marine v. GOL" on Justia Law

St. Paul's Newman Center v. P.J. Swartz, Inc.

2026-10-15T06:40:14-08:00

A church contracted with a corporation, operated by its president, to refurbish and install a pipe organ. The corporation delivered an unfinished, nonfunctional organ. The church then sued both the corporation and its president, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and sought to hold the president personally liable by piercing the corporate veil. Both defendants were properly served but did not respond to the complaint. Subsequently, the church moved for a default judgment. The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, granted the motion, adopting the church’s proposed findings and order verbatim. The court concluded that the corporate veil could be pierced, found fraudulent conduct, and awarded damages totaling $324,640 against both defendants. After judgment was entered, the defendants retained counsel and moved to vacate the default judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), presenting evidence that the president had suffered cognitive decline that excused the failure to respond. The district court denied the motion, finding the evidence of incapacity insufficient and, in its written order, applied additional legal requirements not supported by the cases it cited, including showing diligence, lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, and good faith. On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred by imposing a heightened legal standard not supported by precedent and by adopting the church’s proposed order verbatim without adequate independent analysis, especially given that many of the order’s case citations were inaccurate or nonexistent. The Supreme Court reversed the order denying the motion to vacate the default judgment and remanded for further proceedings under the correct legal standard. View "St. Paul's Newman Center v. P.J. Swartz, Inc." on Justia Law

Kohn v. Glenmede Trust Co., N.A.

2026-10-15T05:30:05-08:00

A party entered into a contract for investment-management services with a trust company and later brought suit asserting multiple claims related to the agreement. The plaintiff initially filed the action in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in 2016, but voluntarily dismissed it in 2017. Within a year, the plaintiff refiled the action, which was again dismissed without prejudice in 2022. Shortly after, and within one year of the second dismissal, the plaintiff commenced a third action asserting similar claims. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings in the trial court, contending that the plaintiff could not invoke Ohio’s saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), more than once, as the statute of limitations had expired for some claims before the second refiling. The trial court agreed, holding that the saving statute did not apply to the third action and that the claims were time-barred. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the negligence claims but reversed as to the fraud, breach-of-contract, and promissory-estoppel claims, concluding that the latter had not previously relied on the saving statute because their statute-of-limitations periods had not expired at the time of the second filing. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and clarified that R.C. 2305.19(A) does not limit the number of times an action may be recommenced if the statute’s requirements are met, regardless of whether the statute of limitations for a claim expired before a prior use of the saving statute. The court held that the saving statute applied to the entire action and that all claims could proceed. The judgment of the Eighth District was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Kohn v. Glenmede Trust Co., N.A." on Justia Law

Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo

2026-10-15T04:07:05-08:00

Two former employees of a company specializing in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems allegedly transferred confidential and trade secret information from their employer to their personal accounts while still employed. They subsequently formed a competing business and left their employer to run it. The employer claimed that these individuals and their new business used confidential information to compete for customers and sought to enjoin them from soliciting certain clients for one year, alongside other relief. The Massachusetts Superior Court heard the employer’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The defendants agreed to return any confidential information and refrain from using it, but did not agree to the restriction on soliciting the employer’s customers. The judge denied the injunction request, finding a genuine dispute as to whether the information taken constituted trade secrets and whether the company took adequate steps to protect it. The judge determined the employer had not established a likelihood of success on the merits or demonstrated irreparable harm, noting that alleged losses could be compensated with monetary damages and did not threaten the existence of the employer’s business. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the appeal on its own initiative. The court reviewed whether the motion judge abused discretion and whether proper legal standards were applied. It held that a presumption of irreparable harm does not arise solely from a likelihood of success on a trade secret misappropriation claim. Instead, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate irreparable harm through specific proof. Because the employer failed to show that monetary damages would be inadequate, and the defendants had already agreed not to use confidential information, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying the injunction. View "Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo" on Justia Law

Perrin v. Windham Southeast Supervisory Union

2026-10-13T06:48:51-08:00

A high school principal was terminated by his school district’s board after an internal investigation into allegations that he mistreated a female student over several years and attempted to dissuade staff from making a mandatory report of child abuse. The investigation included interviews with the student, a school counselor, the principal, and other witnesses. The board provided the principal with written notice of the allegations and an opportunity to respond, after which it held a multi-day hearing where both sides presented evidence and witnesses. The board found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the principal had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward the student and interfered with mandatory reporting obligations, and concluded that there was just and sufficient cause for termination. The principal appealed the dismissal to the Windham Southeast School District Board and, following the board’s decision, filed suit in the Vermont Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Civil Division. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, argued that the pre-termination and post-termination processes violated his constitutional rights, and asserted claims of breach of contract, wrongful termination, denial of due process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The civil division dismissed some claims, granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining claims, and found that the board’s decision was supported by the record, that the principal was afforded adequate due process, and that no evidence supported claims of bias or other wrongdoing. The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the civil division’s decision. The Court held that the principal received constitutionally adequate pre- and post-termination process, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery related to alleged bias, and that sufficient evidence supported the board’s findings and conclusion that just cause existed for dismissal. The Court also found that structural or actual bias claims were either unpreserved or unsupported. View "Perrin v. Windham Southeast Supervisory Union" on Justia Law

Lexon Insurance Company v. Justice

2026-10-09T09:30:11-08:00

Senator James C. Justice II and his family own several coal companies that obtained surety bonds from Lexon Insurance Company, exposing Lexon to significant financial risk. To mitigate this risk, Lexon required the companies to pay annual premiums and post collateral. Over time, the companies’ financial situation declined, leading to missed premium payments and reduced collateral. In 2018 and 2019, Lexon and the companies entered agreements to restructure payments and collateral obligations, with Senator Justice personally guaranteeing these obligations. Despite these agreements, the companies failed to fulfill their collateral and premium commitments, prompting Lexon to demand payment from Justice, who also declined to pay. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee reviewed the case. At summary judgment, the court found Justice liable for breaching the guaranty but noted factual disputes regarding the exact amount owed for past-due premiums. After a bench trial, the district court determined that the relevant agreements defined Justice’s liability as including both unpaid collateral ($14.25 million) and a dynamic “Total Indebtedness” for premiums ($10,929,709.24), resulting in a judgment exceeding $25 million plus interest. The court interpreted the contract language to include ongoing missed premium payments within “Total Indebtedness” and concluded that the obligation to pay persisted until all amounts were satisfied. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that the agreements unambiguously defined “Total Indebtedness” as a dynamic sum that increased with each missed premium payment during the agreement’s term. The guaranty did not cap Justice’s liability at a static amount but covered the full, evolving indebtedness as specified in the agreements. The court also held that the contract’s term continued until all obligations were paid in full, not until a specific date. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Lexon Insurance Company v. Justice" on Justia Law

Texas Captl Bank v. Govt Natl Mtge

2026-10-09T09:30:08-08:00

A mortgage issuer, Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC (RMF), participated in a federal program allowing it to securitize reverse mortgages. When RMF entered bankruptcy, Texas Capital Bank provided debtor-in-possession financing, secured by RMF’s interests in certain collateral, specifically incremental balances on the mortgages known as “tails.” After RMF defaulted on its agreement, the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), under its statutory and contractual authority, extinguished RMF’s interests in the underlying mortgages and assumed ownership of the loans, also extinguishing Texas Capital’s lien interest in the mortgage tails. Texas Capital argued that Ginnie Mae’s actions violated federal law and Texas tort law. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially allowed Texas Capital’s claims for statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and tortious interference to proceed, but dismissed the promissory estoppel claim due to sovereign immunity. Later, the district court granted summary judgment to Ginnie Mae, finding it acted within its statutory authority and concluding that the extinguishment of RMF’s interests necessarily eliminated Texas Capital’s derivative interest in the mortgage tails. The court also dismissed Texas Capital’s tortious interference claim, citing sovereign immunity and a lack of legal basis, and refused to consider Texas Capital’s arbitrary-and-capricious APA theory because it was not sufficiently pled. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that Ginnie Mae acted within its statutory and contractual authority under 12 U.S.C. § 1721(g)(1) in extinguishing both RMF’s and Texas Capital’s interests in the mortgages. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, finding Texas Capital’s tortious interference claim barred by sovereign immunity and ruling that Texas Capital’s failure to plead an arbitrary-and-capricious APA theory justified the district court’s refusal to consider it. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Texas Captl Bank v. Govt Natl Mtge" on Justia Law

BLACK V. IEC GROUP, INC.

2026-10-09T09:00:23-08:00

Two individuals who were enrolled in a health insurance plan administered by a company alleged that their sensitive health information was disclosed without their authorization. In August 2023, the company sent each of them a letter explaining that an associate had mistakenly emailed a spreadsheet containing their private health information—including names, provider details, dates of service, and amounts billed or paid—to one or more other plan members. The plaintiffs asserted that they had entrusted this information to the company based on explicit and implicit promises of confidentiality and that the company’s privacy policy reinforced those expectations. They claimed the company’s unauthorized disclosure deprived them of the benefit of their bargain and diminished the value of the contracted services. Reviewing the case, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the plaintiffs’ class action lawsuit on the grounds that they had not suffered an “injury in fact” necessary for Article III standing. The district court reasoned that disclosure of private information, without more, did not constitute a concrete injury and that the plaintiffs had not shown a substantial likelihood of future harm. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the plaintiffs’ alleged harm—the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive health information entrusted on the basis of confidentiality—was analogous to the common law actions for breach of confidence and breach of contract, both of which were historically recognized as sufficient to support lawsuits. The court further noted that congressional judgment, as reflected in federal statutes like HIPAA, underscored the sensitivity of such information. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged an injury sufficient for Article III standing, reversed the district court’s dismissal, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "BLACK V. IEC GROUP, INC." on Justia Law

CONDUENT STATE HEALTHCARE, LLC v. M&M ORTHODONTICS, PA

2026-10-09T06:13:31-08:00

Needy children in Texas receive orthodontic care through Medicaid, which is administered by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC). HHSC contracted with Conduent State Healthcare, LLC (formerly known as Xerox Corporation and ACS State Healthcare, LLC) to review and approve prior-authorization requests for these services. After Conduent allegedly approved requests without adequately assessing medical necessity, legal disputes arose. The State of Texas pursued civil penalties against Conduent for violating Medicaid policy, resulting in a settlement. Separately, dentists, including Diana Malone, DDS; Scott Malone, DDS; and M&M Orthodontics, PA, settled Medicaid-fraud claims by paying $2 million. Subsequently, these dentists sued Conduent and the State, alleging tortious conduct by Conduent in approving requests without proper review. In Travis County District Court, the State’s plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity was granted, dismissing it from the case. Conduent’s plea to the jurisdiction, which invoked derivative sovereign immunity and the election-of-remedies provision in the Texas Tort Claims Act, was denied. Conduent appealed this interlocutory order. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed the district court’s denial of Conduent’s plea, addressing Conduent’s immunity arguments on the merits. A dissenting justice argued that the appeal should have been dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to hear Conduent’s interlocutory appeal. It held that Conduent, as a private contractor, is not a “governmental unit” under the relevant statutory definitions, and thus cannot utilize Section 51.014(a)(8) or Section 51.014(a)(5) to appeal the denial of its jurisdictional plea. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and judgment and remanded the case to the district court. View "CONDUENT STATE HEALTHCARE, LLC v. M&M ORTHODONTICS, PA" on Justia Law

Berkshire v. Berkshire

2026-10-09T05:06:34-08:00

The case centers on a longstanding family partnership, formed originally in 1988 and later converted to a limited partnership. Rick served as the managing partner, with other family members as partners. Following the death of a parent in 2011, annual financial meetings ceased, and several partners alleged they did not receive adequate financial records or updates for years. Concerns arose over Rick’s management, including incomplete and disorganized financial disclosures, and withdrawals from accounts over which Rick had power of attorney. These issues, along with disputed partnership interests and controversial financial transactions, led to Rick’s removal as managing partner and triggered litigation over his alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The District Court for Douglas County was presented with an amended complaint alleging Rick’s breach of fiduciary duties to the partnership. Rick moved to dismiss, arguing that a related county court proceeding involving a family trust precluded jurisdiction, but the district court denied the motion. Rick filed responses and counterclaims, but failed to properly plead affirmative defenses such as the statute of limitations. Extensive discovery and a bench trial followed, with evidence showing Rick’s negative capital account and numerous questionable withdrawals and transfers. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo, including jurisdictional questions, evidentiary issues, and the award of attorney fees. The Court held that it had jurisdiction, affirmed the district court's findings that Rick no longer had an ownership interest in the partnership due to his negative capital account, and upheld the damages awarded for his breaches of fiduciary duty. The Court also affirmed the award of attorney fees to the prevailing parties and rejected Rick’s arguments regarding lack of specificity in pleadings, statute of limitations, and the district court’s jurisdiction. The district court’s orders were affirmed in full. View "Berkshire v. Berkshire" on Justia Law

Mieco v. Pioneer Natural Resources

2026-10-08T15:30:06-08:00

MIECO, L.L.C., an energy trading firm, entered into a contract with Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. to purchase a specified quantity of natural gas daily on a Firm basis from November 2020 to March 2021. The contract included a force majeure clause excusing performance for certain uncontrollable events. In February 2021, Winter Storm Uri struck Texas, causing severe weather that disrupted natural gas production and delivery. Pioneer failed to deliver the contracted amount from February 14 to 19 and issued a force majeure notice. MIECO purchased replacement gas at higher prices and later sued Pioneer for breach of contract, seeking over $9 million in damages. Pioneer admitted nonperformance but argued it was excused by the force majeure provision. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially granted summary judgment in favor of Pioneer, finding the storm was a force majeure event and Pioneer had exercised due diligence. MIECO appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that genuine disputes of material fact remained regarding whether Pioneer’s performance was truly prevented and if Pioneer exercised reasonable efforts and due diligence. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case for a bench trial. After the trial, the district court again found for Pioneer, determining the storm prevented performance and Pioneer had made reasonable efforts both before and after the storm to mitigate its impacts. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal issues de novo. The court held that the district court complied with its mandate, properly found that Winter Storm Uri prevented Pioneer’s performance, and that Pioneer exercised due diligence. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the admission of Pioneer’s expert testimony and exclusion of MIECO’s expert testimony. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Mieco v. Pioneer Natural Resources" on Justia Law

ARKANSAS WINE AND SPIRITS WHOLESALE, LLC v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

2026-10-08T07:31:25-08:00

This case arose from a conflict regarding the distribution of Kirkland Signature alcoholic beverages in Arkansas. Under Arkansas’s three-tier system for alcohol distribution, several manufacturers registered different Kirkland Signature products with the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Division, designating different wholesalers. After realizing that multiple wholesalers were assigned to the same brand, the ABC Director directed all Kirkland Signature manufacturers to use the same wholesaler—Moon Distributors—because Moon was the first registered wholesaler for the brand. As a result, the Director granted change requests from two manufacturers (Mach Flynt and Levecke) that switched their designated wholesaler from Arkansas Wine and Spirits (AWS) to Moon Distributors, effectively removing AWS as a wholesaler for those Kirkland Signature products. After the Director’s decision, AWS appealed to the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (Board), which held a hearing and upheld the Director’s ruling. AWS then sought review in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, which affirmed the Board’s decision. AWS further appealed, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, which accepted review. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that, under Arkansas Code Annotated section 3-2-403, Kirkland Signature constitutes a single brand for distribution purposes, requiring all manufacturers of that brand to designate the same exclusive wholesaler. The court found the statute ambiguous but, after applying rules of statutory construction and reviewing relevant regulations, determined that the legislative intent was to grant wholesalers exclusivity for each brand. The court also held that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the Board’s decision. View "ARKANSAS WINE AND SPIRITS WHOLESALE, LLC v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION" on Justia Law

Sandoz Inc v. United Therapeutics Corporation

2026-10-07T09:30:04-08:00

This dispute centers on the competitive conduct between United Therapeutics Corporation (UTC), the manufacturer of the brand-name drug Remodulin, and Sandoz, Inc. and its marketing partner RareGen, LLC, which sought to launch a generic version of treprostinil for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension. After Sandoz received FDA approval to market injectable generic treprostinil, UTC and Smiths Medical took steps to restrict the supply of cartridges necessary for subcutaneous administration, ultimately requiring specialty pharmacies to distribute cartridges exclusively for Remodulin. As a result, Sandoz was unable to launch its generic drug for subcutaneous use until an alternative cartridge was developed and FDA-approved several years later. Sandoz and RareGen alleged that UTC’s conduct violated federal antitrust and state tort laws and breached a settlement agreement arising from prior patent litigation. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the antitrust and state-law tort claims, granted summary judgment in favor of Sandoz as to liability on its breach-of-contract claim, and awarded damages after a bench trial. The court also denied UTC’s motion to exclude Sandoz’s damages expert. RareGen was dismissed from the case following the grant of summary judgment, and both UTC and Sandoz appealed various rulings. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Sandoz on liability for the breach-of-contract claim, finding the relevant provisions ambiguous and remanding for trial. It also reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of UTC on the tortious interference claim, instructing the District Court to analyze it independently from the antitrust claims. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the antitrust and unfair and deceptive trade practices claims, concluding that UTC demonstrated procompetitive justifications for its conduct. The appellate court affirmed the denial of UTC’s Daubert motion to exclude the damages expert, and vacated the damages award, remanding for further proceedings. View "Sandoz Inc v. United Therapeutics Corporation" on Justia Law

Espinosa v. State Farm

2026-10-06T06:32:58-08:00

A couple began constructing a residential barndominium and lived in an RV on their property in Sandpoint, Idaho. After a heavy snowstorm caused the collapse of the partially constructed dwelling and damaged utility connections to their RV, they made claims under their State Farm homeowner’s insurance policy for structural losses, personal property damage, demolition and outbuilding losses, additional living expenses (ALE), and alleged unreasonable delays. State Farm paid over $120,000 but denied further claims, citing lack of required documentation and inventories. The couple filed suit in the District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and negligent adjustment. State Farm moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their losses and did not incur ALE as defined under the policy. The district court struck several exhibits as inadmissible hearsay, including a letter from a medical expert and a timeline of events, and granted summary judgment to State Farm. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not complied with policy conditions, failed to substantiate their claimed losses, and that their claims were fairly debatable. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and the grant of summary judgment de novo. The Court affirmed the district court’s exclusion of evidence as inadmissible hearsay and lack of personal knowledge. It held that the plaintiffs did not establish entitlement to ALE, failed to substantiate structural and personal property losses, and provided insufficient evidence of bad faith or negligent adjustment. The judgment of the district court was affirmed, with State Farm awarded costs on appeal. View "Espinosa v. State Farm" on Justia Law

MERIT HOLDINGS v. INTERNATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE

2026-10-06T06:14:23-08:00

Several business entities collectively known as the Merit Entities entered into loan agreements with International Bank of Commerce (IBC Bank) to finance the expansion of an auto dealership group. After discovering alleged fraudulent conduct by the dealership’s operator and his subsequent death, the Merit Entities entered negotiations with IBC Bank to restructure their debt, resulting in new loan agreements in October 2020 containing arbitration provisions with an anti-waiver clause. Despite ongoing disputes regarding outstanding debt and the validity of certain contract terms, the central issue on appeal was whether these disputes should be resolved in court or through arbitration. After the Merit Entities filed suit in the District Court, IBC Bank responded with both a motion to dismiss and an alternative motion to compel arbitration, citing the anti-waiver provision. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss in part and, following an evidentiary hearing, compelled arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement enforceable and applicable to the plaintiffs’ claims. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that IBC Bank’s participation in litigation constituted a waiver of its right to arbitrate. The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case de novo and vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, affirming the District Court’s order compelling arbitration. The Court held that IBC Bank did not waive its right to arbitrate because its conduct fell within the scope of activity expressly permitted by the anti-waiver provision in the arbitration agreement. Additionally, the Court found that the Merit Entities failed to establish fraudulent inducement specifically directed at the arbitration provisions. The parties’ disputes must therefore be resolved in arbitration as agreed. View "MERIT HOLDINGS v. INTERNATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE" on Justia Law

Cornice Ventures I LLC v. Silberstein

2026-10-05T09:32:43-08:00

Investors in an e-commerce company alleged they were defrauded by the founder and former CEO, claiming that their decisions to purchase preferred shares in early 2021 were based on false representations about the company’s profitability and financial health. The founder repeatedly refused to provide audited financial statements before closing, and pressured the investors to move quickly, warning that their allocation would be lost to other parties if they delayed for due diligence. The investors relied on unaudited financial statements and entered into two stock purchase agreements in February and March 2021. After the transactions, the company failed to provide audited financial statements by the contractual deadline, and the founder sold significant personal stock. In June 2022, the investors finally received audited statements revealing substantial losses and inconsistencies with previous unaudited reports. The investors initially filed suit in New Jersey in August 2024. After enforcement of the Delaware forum-selection clause, they dismissed the New Jersey action and refiled in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in April 2025, asserting claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and a New Jersey statutory claim. The Superior Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the claims accrued no later than March 2021 and were barred by Delaware’s three-year statute of limitations. The court found no basis for tolling under fraudulent concealment or inherently unknowable injury doctrines, reasoning the investors were on inquiry notice when they executed the agreements without the requested information. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the statute of limitations question de novo. The Court held that, regardless of tolling doctrines, inquiry notice was triggered in April 2021 when the company breached its obligation to provide audited financials. Because the investors filed more than three years later, their claims were time-barred. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal. View "Cornice Ventures I LLC v. Silberstein" on Justia Law

Phillips v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery

2026-10-02T15:30:08-08:00

A patient underwent surgery in Texas, during which a specific surgical stapler and staple product were used to reconnect sections of his colon. After initial success, he suffered severe complications days later, including sepsis, allegedly caused by a defect in the staple line. This resulted in months of treatment and ultimately his death. His widow and children sued several product manufacturers and sellers, asserting claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and other product liability theories. Initially, the plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, and Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (“Phillips I”). Discovery revealed confusion about the identity of the actual seller, prompting the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint against Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. alone, asserting only breach of warranty claims. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability without prejudice, primarily due to lack of presuit notice required under Texas law. The district court instead dismissed both claims with prejudice and denied leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile and that the plaintiffs had not provided proper notice or shown how they could cure the defect. After dismissal in Phillips I, the plaintiffs filed a second suit in state court (“Phillips II”) against additional parties. This case was removed to federal court, where the defendants moved for dismissal based on res judicata and collateral estoppel. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Phillips II with prejudice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed both district court judgments, holding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim due to lack of presuit notice, the denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion, and preclusion doctrines properly barred the second suit. View "Phillips v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery" on Justia Law

Pena-Torres v. University of Science, Arts and Tech

2026-10-02T10:30:02-08:00

A group of medical students attended the University of Science, Arts and Technology (USAT), an international medical school based in Montserrat. USAT was licensed in Montserrat and, for years, was listed in the International Medical Education Directory, allowing its graduates to seek U.S. medical licensure. After a volcanic eruption in 2007, USAT began offering classes online and at alternative sites in the United States and Puerto Rico. In 2018, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) changed its policy, restricting certification to students educated in the country where the school was authorized. USAT students who took courses outside Montserrat after 2018 were no longer eligible for ECFMG certification, affecting their ability to obtain U.S. medical licenses. The students alleged that USAT misrepresented its accreditation and educational legitimacy, leading them to pay substantial tuition under false pretenses. The students filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, asserting federal RICO claims, as well as Puerto Rico law claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the students failed to establish a “pattern of racketeering activity” as required under RICO, and dismissed the federal claims with prejudice. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the Puerto Rico law claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that the students did not present sufficient evidence of closed- or open-ended continuity to establish a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. As a result, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the RICO claim and its decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. View "Pena-Torres v. University of Science, Arts and Tech" on Justia Law

Basin Electric Power Cooperative v. FERC

2026-10-02T06:01:23-08:00

Basin Electric Power Cooperative is a not-for-profit, member-owned electric cooperative that sells wholesale electricity to its member systems, including Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association. Tri-State, in turn, provides power to its own members such as Northwest Rural Public Power District, which distributes electricity in Nebraska and accounts for a notable share of Tri-State’s Eastern Interconnection energy demands. Two contracts govern the parties’ relationships: one between Basin and Tri-State (the Basin/Tri-State Agreement) and another between Tri-State and Northwest Rural. In 2022, Northwest Rural notified Tri-State of its intent to withdraw from membership and terminate its agreement, prompting Basin to argue that such a withdrawal would breach its contract with Tri-State. Initially, Basin sought relief in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, but the court dismissed the case, deferring to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for primary jurisdiction. After further proceedings, FERC considered a complaint by Northwest Rural seeking confirmation that its withdrawal was permissible under the Basin/Tri-State Agreement. FERC found that the contract expressly contemplated such member withdrawals and provided a mechanism for Tri-State and Basin to address the implications, holding that Northwest Rural’s withdrawal would not constitute a breach by Tri-State. Basin’s subsequent motions for rehearing were denied, and it filed petitions for review. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the FERC orders. The court held that Section 9 of the Basin/Tri-State Agreement unambiguously permits Tri-State to transfer assets—such as allowing a member to withdraw—without Basin’s approval, provided certain conditions are met. The court found FERC’s interpretation neither arbitrary nor capricious and denied Basin’s petitions for review, affirming that Northwest Rural’s withdrawal does not breach the Basin/Tri-State Agreement. View "Basin Electric Power Cooperative v. FERC" on Justia Law

Passport 420, LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co.

2026-10-01T09:02:19-08:00

Two individuals formed a limited liability company to purchase a jet, with one contributing funds that he had embezzled from a client. The company secured an aircraft insurance policy from an insurer, which later renewed the policy without investigating the source of funds used for the purchase. Eventually, the United States government seized the jet in connection with criminal charges against the member who committed the embezzlement. The other member had no knowledge of the crime. After the seizure, the company filed a claim with the insurer, seeking compensation under the policy for the loss. The insurer denied coverage and rescinded the policy, citing concealment of the material fact that embezzled funds were used to purchase the aircraft. The company sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Following trial in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, the trial court denied the insurer’s motion for judgment based on concealment, and the jury found in favor of the company, awarding substantial damages, including punitive damages. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. Applying a de novo standard, the court held that an applicant for insurance has an affirmative duty to disclose material facts, even if the insurer does not specifically inquire about them. The court determined that the use of embezzled funds was a material fact, and the manager’s knowledge of the embezzlement was imputed to the company. Therefore, the insurer was entitled to rescind the policy. The judgment in favor of the company was reversed, and the company’s cross-appeal was dismissed. View "Passport 420, LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co." on Justia Law

2461 Corporation T/A Madam's Organ v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board

2026-10-01T06:32:02-08:00

A tavern operating in Washington, D.C., was required to maintain a security plan as a condition of its liquor license. The plan, approved by the District’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board, included a statement that “[p]olice and/or EMS are called for any emergency situation” under a section describing the training provided to security personnel. In May 2023, after a physical altercation occurred between a patron and the tavern’s security guards outside the establishment, the tavern did not contact the police, although the patron later filed a police report. Following the incident, the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board initiated a show-cause proceeding to determine whether the tavern violated D.C. Code § 25-823(a)(6) by failing to adhere to its security plan. After a hearing, the Board found that the tavern was required by its plan to call the police during “any emergency situation,” determined that the incident qualified as such, and imposed a $1,000 fine alongside other sanctions. The Board interpreted the security plan in a manner akin to contract interpretation, concluding that the relevant provision imposed an affirmative obligation to contact the authorities during emergencies. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the Board’s order. The court held that, when read in context, the security plan provision in question described the content of the training provided to security personnel rather than imposing a standalone requirement that the tavern call the police in every emergency situation. There was no evidence presented that the required training had not been provided. Thus, the court ruled that the tavern did not violate its security plan and consequently did not violate D.C. Code § 25-823(a)(6). The court reversed the Board’s order. View "2461 Corporation T/A Madam's Organ v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board" on Justia Law

Navatek Capital Inc. v. Kao

2026-09-30T10:34:30-08:00

A dispute arose between the principal members of a defense contracting company after Martin Kao, who had become the CEO and major owner, was charged with crimes related to fraudulent misuse of Paycheck Protection Program funds. The company, which relied on government contracts requiring strict security clearance, suffered significant harm when Kao’s actions led to the invalidation of its facility security clearance and placed it at risk of suspension from federal contracting. The original owner and another entity sought Kao’s disassociation and damages, citing breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and gross negligence. The parties were bound by an operating agreement requiring arbitration for disputes. After a civil complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, an amended operating agreement and voting trust limited Kao’s control, but the company continued to face loss of contracts and financial harm. Arbitration proceedings began, but Kao, citing pending federal criminal charges, unsuccessfully moved to stay the arbitration, arguing his rights against self-incrimination would be prejudiced. The arbitrator denied the stay and ultimately awarded significant damages, including punitive damages, to the plaintiffs. Kao moved to vacate the arbitration award in circuit court, arguing the arbitrator erred in refusing to postpone and in awarding punitive damages. The circuit court denied the motion, finding no “sufficient cause” for postponement and affirming the arbitrator’s authority. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) largely affirmed, holding the arbitrator did not abuse discretion and the punitive damages award was within authority. Upon review, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i held that the proper standard for “sufficient cause for postponement” under Hawai‘i law is “good cause,” and articulated three factors for courts to consider, grounded in the Hawai‘i Constitution. Applying these, the court found Kao had not met the standard, and affirmed the ICA’s judgment. View "Navatek Capital Inc. v. Kao" on Justia Law

Copper City Gaming v. Allen

2026-09-29T13:05:05-08:00

Copper City Gaming, Inc. alleged that in July 2022, Eric Allen entered into a lease agreement with the corporation, resulting in four payments totaling $14,400. Copper City claimed these payments were fraudulent, part of a conspiracy between Eric and Russ Allen, and asserted causes of action for fraud, violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. The complaint specifically alleged the lease used the wrong address and corporate name, Eric lacked authority to sublease or failed to provide usable space, and Copper City never stored property there. Previously, a related action (DV-22-206) involved disputes between shareholder groups over management and use of corporate funds. That action began in Copper City’s name but, by court order, Russ and Camy Allen were substituted as plaintiffs, and Copper City was no longer a named party. The parties reached a mediated settlement, which included a Mutual General Release and Settlement Agreement, and a Special Master’s Order waiving certain business dispute claims, including storage-unit fees. The Special Master dismissed the action with prejudice as fully settled. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s order granting Eric Allen’s motion to dismiss under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on collateral estoppel grounds. The Supreme Court held that the complaint and materials properly considered at the pleading stage did not conclusively establish that the prior adjudication decided the identical issues now raised, that Copper City was adequately represented in the prior action, or that Copper City had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues. The Court also found the District Court erred by considering matters outside the pleadings without converting the motion to summary judgment under Rule 12(d). The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Copper City Gaming v. Allen" on Justia Law

SWN Production Co LLC v. Blue Beck Ltd

2026-09-29T09:00:04-08:00

SWN Production Co., LLC leased land from Bluebeck Ltd. and paid royalties for gas extracted from the property. A dispute emerged over the lease’s performance, leading SWN Production Co. to seek a declaratory judgment on whether it was in default, whether Bluebeck was obligated to provide information needed to cure alleged defaults, and whether lease forfeiture required agreement or a judicial finding of default. The underlying issue concerned whether the lease could be terminated based on alleged defaults, which depended on future events. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found the complaint unripe because any lease termination was contingent on future developments. As a result, it dismissed the action without prejudice, concluding there was no case or controversy suitable for judicial resolution under Article III. After the dismissal, Bluebeck Ltd. filed a motion for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses based on a fee-shifting provision in the lease. The District Court denied this motion, reasoning that Bluebeck was not a prevailing party since the dismissal did not finally resolve the parties’ rights in its favor. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s assumption of jurisdiction and the denial of the fee motion. The appellate court determined that once the District Court concluded it lacked Article III subject-matter jurisdiction due to unripeness, it had no authority to rule on the fee motion. The main holding by the Third Circuit is that a federal court lacking Article III jurisdiction over the underlying claim cannot adjudicate a motion for attorney’s fees, costs, or expenses based solely on a contractual fee-shifting clause. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded with instructions to dismiss Bluebeck’s fee motion. View "SWN Production Co LLC v. Blue Beck Ltd" on Justia Law

KANE V. PACAP AVIATION FINANCE, LLC

2026-09-29T08:00:30-08:00

An airline operating among the Hawaiian Islands faced severe financial difficulties over several years, leading to its abrupt shutdown in November 2017. The airline had previously been owned by a trust affiliated with a prominent individual, then partially sold to entities controlled by other businessmen. When the airline closed, employees received only one day's notice and did not receive their final paychecks. Following the closure, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee was appointed. Together with two unions representing affected employees, the trustee initiated adversary proceedings against the airline’s former owners, directors, and lenders, alleging violations of Hawaii’s Dislocated Workers Act (DWA) and the federal WARN Act for failure to provide the required notice and compensation. Additional claims included breach of fiduciary duties and requests for equitable remedies such as veil piercing and equitable subordination. The proceedings began in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii, but the District Court for the District of Hawaii withdrew the reference, consolidated the cases, and conducted a jury trial. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for some claims and allowed others to proceed. The jury returned mixed verdicts, finding some defendants liable for statutory and fiduciary duty violations, but the court denied punitive damages and limited recovery to avoid double compensation. The court also ruled on equitable remedies, including piercing the corporate veil and equitably subordinating certain loans, and ordered contribution from a third-party defendant. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment. It held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The panel affirmed the trustee’s and unions’ Article III standing. It reversed in part on fiduciary duty claims, concluding that minority stakeholders and affiliated entities could owe fiduciary duties and be deemed “employers” under the DWA. The court clarified the statutory definition of “employer” and the scope of the DWA’s safe harbor defense, ruling it was unavailable absent a binding divestiture. The panel affirmed evidentiary rulings, vacated the nominal damages award due to erroneous jury instructions, affirmed the prohibition of punitive damages, and upheld the equitable remedies and contribution order. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "KANE V. PACAP AVIATION FINANCE, LLC" on Justia Law

ESCH v. TURNER & COMPANY, INC.

2026-09-29T06:41:10-08:00

The plaintiffs purchased a residential lot from a developer and later alleged that defective grading and drainage in the subdivision caused water and erosion damage to their property. They claimed that the developer and seller deviated from an approved drainage plan, redirecting stormwater onto their lot. The plaintiffs discovered the source of the problem several years after purchasing the property, following a heavy rainstorm. Their claims included negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike construction. The District Court of Oklahoma County conducted a bench trial. After the plaintiffs rested their case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict and argued that the tort and warranty claims were barred by Oklahoma’s ten-year statute of repose (12 O.S. § 109), and the contract claim was barred by the five-year statute of limitations (12 O.S. § 95). The trial court found that the improvement causing the harm was substantially completed more than ten years before suit, and that the contract claim accrued on the date the lot was conveyed. The trial court entered judgment for the defendants on all claims. The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the appeal. It held that the statute of repose begins to run upon substantial completion of the specific improvement alleged to have caused harm, not the completion of the overall development. The only evidence of substantial completion was uncontroverted, showing completion more than ten years before suit, barring the tort claims. The implied warranty and contract claims were also time-barred by the statute of limitations, and Turner & Company was not a party to the contract. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "ESCH v. TURNER & COMPANY, INC." on Justia Law

Seiwald v. Irias

2026-09-28T11:01:41-08:00

The dispute centers on the division of a government pension earned by an employee during a lengthy period of cohabitation before marriage. The employee worked at the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), contributing to his pension from 1987 to 2018. He and his partner began living together in 1993, executed a domestic partnership affidavit for benefits, purchased a home jointly, and eventually married in 2003. After their relationship ended, the partner sought legal separation and also filed a civil action alleging breach of an oral agreement made during their cohabitation period, in which they agreed to pool their earnings and share equally any property acquired as a result. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco consolidated the civil and divorce proceedings. It bifurcated the case, first trying the claims regarding the oral agreement. After trial, the court found that an implied-in-fact (Marvin) agreement existed during the cohabitation period, entitling each party to an equal share of property acquired, including pension contributions and accumulations. The employee moved to clarify that statutory protections made his pension “unassignable” and “exempt from execution,” but the court held that the partner was entitled to half of the pension benefits accrued during the Marvin period, and could receive payment upon distribution or via other assets after actuarial valuation. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed whether Public Utilities Code section 12337 barred the partner from sharing in pension benefits accrued during cohabitation. The court held that section 12337 does not prohibit the partner from receiving a share of pension contributions and accumulations, because her claim was based on ownership arising from the Marvin agreement, not as a creditor or assignee. The trial court’s order was affirmed. View "Seiwald v. Irias" on Justia Law

MLA Capital, LLC v. Keagle

2026-09-28T10:31:22-08:00

Linda Keagle and her late husband obtained two loans in 2007 and 2008, totaling $450,000, from MLA Capital, LLC and Encarnacion Alvarez and her late husband. Both loans were evidenced by promissory notes with definite maturity dates in 2012 and 2013. The Keagles failed to make payments before the maturity dates, and subsequently, from August 2018 to March 2020, MLA Capital and the Alvarezes received monthly checks from C&C Organization, a company with which Linda was affiliated. MLA Capital and Encarnacion Alvarez filed a lawsuit in 2022 alleging breach of the promissory notes and related common counts. Linda moved for summary judgment in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, arguing the claims were untimely under four-year and two-year statutes of limitations. She contended the payments made by C&C Organization did not restart or toll the limitations period, as she neither authorized nor signed the checks. Plaintiffs opposed, asserting a six-year statute of limitations applied and that the checks constituted partial payments restarting the limitations period. The trial court granted summary judgment for Linda, finding no evidence Linda had agreed to bear responsibility for the loans after maturity or authorized the payments. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and held that a six-year statute of limitations under California Uniform Commercial Code section 3118 applies to the promissory note claims and related common counts, as it is more specific and recent than general contract limitations statutes. The court further determined there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether the payments from C&C Organization constituted partial loan repayments authorized by Linda, which could have restarted the limitations period under Code of Civil Procedure section 360. The judgment was reversed, and the trial court was instructed to deny summary judgment. View "MLA Capital, LLC v. Keagle" on Justia Law

UNITED STATES V. BURTON

2026-09-28T08:00:33-08:00

Several employees of the Space and Missile Systems Center of the United States Air Force brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against Jeremy Burton, the Center’s former Deputy Chief Information Officer. The plaintiffs alleged that Burton, in coordination with a defense contractor, manipulated contract awards to ensure profits were shared in violation of federal regulations, thereby submitting fraudulent payment claims to the government. Initially, Burton moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(1) barred the suit because he was a member of the armed forces, which would preclude jurisdiction over actions brought by one member of the armed forces against another arising out of military service. The United States District Court for the Central District of California first agreed and dismissed the claims against Burton. However, after further briefing on the status of the parties, the district court reconsidered and vacated its earlier order, concluding that Burton was a civilian employee and not a member of the armed forces. The suit was permitted to proceed, and Burton appealed before the case reached final judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit examined whether it had jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order denying Burton’s defense under section 3730(e)(1). The court held that the district court’s order did not meet the requirements of the collateral order doctrine, specifically because it was not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The statute at issue was determined to be a jurisdictional bar, not an immunity from suit, and thus not subject to interlocutory appeal. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "UNITED STATES V. BURTON" on Justia Law

Anthropic PBC v. United States Department of War

2026-09-25T07:01:01-08:00

A technology company developed an artificial intelligence system and imposed contractual and technical restrictions to prevent its use for fully autonomous lethal military operations and mass domestic surveillance. The company had previously adapted its product to meet some government needs but refused to remove these two key restrictions when the Department of War (formerly the Department of Defense) sought contractual terms allowing all lawful uses of the AI system. This disagreement coincided with a dispute over the product’s use in a sensitive military operation and previous incidents where the AI’s restrictions prevented it from fulfilling government requests. As a result, the Secretary of War determined that continued use of the AI posed a national security risk and ordered its removal from the Department’s supply chain under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018. The Department promptly notified the company, offered an opportunity for reconsideration, and began implementing the exclusion. The company petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review and raised statutory and constitutional challenges, arguing that the exclusion was arbitrary, beyond statutory authority, and violated due process and First Amendment rights. The company also sought a stay, which was denied, and later requested rescission, which was also denied by the Secretary. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that it had jurisdiction under the statute to review the procurement action. The court found the Department’s determination reasonable, concluding that the company’s ability and willingness to restrict the AI’s use posed a covered “supply chain risk” under the statute, even without evidence of malicious intent. The court also held that less intrusive measures were not reasonably available, and that any procedural deficiencies in notice did not prejudice the company. The court further held that the exclusion did not violate the Fifth or First Amendments. The petitions for review were denied. View "Anthropic PBC v. United States Department of War" on Justia Law

Alstom Transportation, Inc. v. Federal Railroad Administration

2026-09-25T07:01:01-08:00

A privately owned railroad company was engaged by the Nevada Department of Transportation to build a high-speed passenger rail line between Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada. To fund this $12 billion project, the company sought and received a $3 billion federal grant from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The Act contains a “Buy America” requirement, generally mandating that federally funded projects use goods produced in the United States, but it allows waivers if domestic goods are unavailable or unsatisfactory. The railroad company solicited bids for high-speed trains, and only two manufacturers responded: one offering to build most trains domestically but at a lower maximum speed, and another proposing to build the first two trains abroad to meet the project’s higher speed requirement, before shifting production to the U.S. After reviewing the bids, the FRA proposed to waive the Buy America requirement for either bid, but ultimately finalized a waiver only for the foreign-manufactured trains, based on its finding that no domestic manufacturer could produce trains at the required speed. The railroad company then contracted with the foreign manufacturer. The domestic manufacturer, having lost the contract, challenged the waiver in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing it was unlawful and arbitrary. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding the domestic manufacturer lacked standing. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the domestic manufacturer had standing, as it suffered a concrete economic injury traceable to the waiver and redressable by court action. However, the court determined that the waiver was both lawful and reasonable under the statute, as the FRA correctly found no domestic producer could supply the required high-speed trains. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, converting it from a jurisdictional dismissal to a decision on the merits. View "Alstom Transportation, Inc. v. Federal Railroad Administration" on Justia Law

Gendreau vs Movora LLC

2026-09-24T11:01:36-08:00

A Swedish private equity firm specializing in veterinary products sought to acquire a company that manufactured orthopedic implants for animals. At the time of negotiations, the target company was involved in ongoing patent litigation initiated by a third party, which posed significant financial risk. To address this uncertainty, the parties included a broad indemnification provision in their agreement, requiring the sellers to cover losses “as a result of, or in connection with” the patent litigation. After the sale closed, the litigation expanded to include additional products and patents, culminating in a $70 million settlement and a license for one of the company’s products. The buyer financed the settlement with a loan. Most former owners settled indemnity claims, but the company’s founder did not, prompting the new owners to sue for enforcement of the indemnity. The Superior Court of the State of Delaware initially granted summary judgment to the buyers on certain defenses but otherwise denied both parties’ motions, proceeding to trial. Following trial, the court held that the founder was required to indemnify the buyers for damages arising from the patent litigation, but not for the cost of the patent license. It awarded only half of the requested attorneys’ fees for patent litigation, citing allocation challenges, and also denied recovery of fees incurred to enforce the indemnification provision. The court did, however, award prejudgment interest, including on the loan interest expense. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the indemnification provision covered losses arising from post-transaction conduct and did not violate public policy, and that the implied covenant defense was inapplicable. The court found error in awarding prejudgment interest on the loan-interest expense, which resulted in a double recovery. For the cross-appeal, it held that the buyers were entitled to the license cost and the full amount of attorneys’ fees from the patent litigation, but not fees for enforcing the indemnification provision. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Gendreau vs Movora LLC" on Justia Law

SCHUSTER v. MILBRATH

2026-09-24T07:02:19-08:00

A developer began constructing and selling duplex-style condominiums in Bonner County, Idaho, using a standard real estate purchase and sale agreement (PSA) form. The buyers, including a real estate agent and his wife, entered into PSAs for two units, planning to use them as personal and investment properties. The PSAs referenced detailed “Plans and Specifications” for the construction and finishes of the units, but no such documents were attached or ever created. Disputes later arose over the scope and quality of the promised finishes, especially after the developer communicated price increases and clarified the options for base and upgraded finishes. The buyers sued to enforce the contracts and sought specific performance, while the developer counterclaimed for a declaration that the PSAs were invalid due to indefiniteness. The District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County, conducted a bench trial. It found that the PSAs for the disputed units were missing essential material terms, specifically the absent Plans and Specifications, which left the scope of work, finishes, and price adjustments undefined. The court concluded that no enforceable contract was formed and denied the buyers’ request for specific performance. The developer was ordered to return deposits but was deemed the prevailing party, entitling him to attorney fees and costs. The district court also conditioned a stay of its judgment pending appeal on the posting of an additional bond. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that the PSAs were invalid and unenforceable because they omitted material terms necessary to define the contractual obligations. The buyers’ challenge to the additional bond was deemed moot given the disposition of the contract claims. The award of attorney fees to the developer was upheld, and the Supreme Court granted him attorney fees and costs for the appeal as the prevailing party. View "SCHUSTER v. MILBRATH" on Justia Law

DOTSON V. CIA DRUG, LLC

2026-09-24T06:04:22-08:00

The dispute involved two sets of co-owners of a Kentucky limited liability company operating a pharmacy. In 2019, the Dotsons acquired a 50 percent ownership interest from the Ingrams, with a promissory note and security agreement (the “Ingram debt”), making the Dotsons and the Andersons equal owners. In 2023, the Andersons and the LLC filed suit against the Dotsons, who counterclaimed. In early 2024, the parties participated in a mediation and reached a settlement agreement, which was recorded on video during a Zoom call. The mediator recited the terms, including payment arrangements and asset/debt allocations, and the parties affirmed the terms verbally. Subsequently, disputes arose regarding the nature of the Ingram debt (whether corporate or personal), leading both sides to refuse to fulfill their respective payment obligations. The Rowan Circuit Court, after a hearing, found the settlement agreement valid, enforceable, and unambiguous. The court determined the Ingram debt was personal to the Dotsons and not assumed by the Andersons, and held that the agreement did not violate Kentucky’s Statute of Frauds. The court did not address the applicability of Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 99.10. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed and concluded that the requirements of CR 99.10 were satisfied. On discretionary review, the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that a video recording of an oral settlement agreement, where parties knowingly affirm the terms, constitutes a valid “electronic record” and “electronic signature” under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and satisfies the Statute of Frauds and CR 99.10. The court also found the settlement terms unambiguous and complete, and that the parties mutually assented to them. Issues of alleged breach of contract were deemed premature and not addressed. View "DOTSON V. CIA DRUG, LLC" on Justia Law

Litterer v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc.

2026-09-22T07:31:05-08:00

In December 2020, an individual was injured at a ski resort owned by a corporation when he collided with a snowmobile operated by an employee. After the incident, he filed several claims against both the corporation and the employee. While the litigation was ongoing, he purchased a ski pass for the 2022-23 season, during which he electronically signed an online waiver releasing any and all claims, including those arising from past events, against the corporation and its employees. The District Court for Summit County, Colorado, concluded that the online waiver signed during the purchase of the 2022-23 pass operated as a release of all existing claims, not merely as a pre-injury exculpatory agreement. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s remaining claims with prejudice, including his claims for willful and wanton conduct and his request for exemplary damages. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed that the waiver was a valid release, enforceable under general contract principles, and rejected arguments that it was unconscionable or lacked mutual assent. The appellate court also held that claims for willful and wanton conduct and exemplary damages were not independent, cognizable causes of action. The Supreme Court of Colorado, reviewing the case, affirmed the appellate court’s decision. It held that the 2022 online waiver was a post-injury release, not an exculpatory agreement, and was enforceable under traditional contract principles. The Court further held that claims for willful and wanton conduct and exemplary damages were properly dismissed, as they are not independent causes of action. Additionally, it found that its prior decision in Miller v. Crested Butte, LLC, which concerned pre-injury waivers, was not applicable to this post-injury release. View "Litterer v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc." on Justia Law

Scott v. Ulta Beauty, Inc.

2026-09-18T10:01:13-08:00

Several individuals filed a putative class action against two related corporate defendants, alleging that the defendants’ website terms and conditions violated a California statute known as section 1670.8, or the “Yelp Law.” The plaintiffs argued that certain provisions in the website’s terms—specifically, language related to trademark use and website access—prohibited or penalized negative statements about the defendants, their employees, or their goods and services. The plaintiffs claimed these provisions constituted unlawful non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case and sustained the defendants’ demurrer to the consolidated class action complaint, first with leave to amend and then, after an amended complaint was filed, without leave to amend. The court found that the challenged terms were limited to intellectual property protections and did not restrict consumer speech. It also determined that the statute did not create a private right of action for merely including a violative provision unless there was a threat to enforce that provision or penalize speech. The court concluded that neither the trademark nor the termination provisions in the defendants’ terms constituted actionable violations of section 1670.8 and entered judgment dismissing the case. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the website’s trademark language did not waive consumers’ rights to make critical statements about the defendants, and the website access termination clause was not a restriction on consumer speech. The court concluded that plaintiffs had not stated a cause of action under section 1670.8 and confirmed that the inclusion of these provisions, without a threat or attempt to enforce against protected speech, does not violate the statute. View "Scott v. Ulta Beauty, Inc." on Justia Law

Sujan v. UHS Corona

2026-09-16T11:32:36-08:00

A physician who practiced at Corona Regional Medical Center alleged that the hospital and three individual doctors conspired to defame him, destroy his professional reputation, and summarily suspended his admitting privileges under false pretenses. He claimed these actions were motivated by competitive and financial interests, and that the hospital and defendants orchestrated a campaign using fabricated internal reports to target him, resulting in financial and emotional harm. The physician entered into an agreement with the hospital to lift his suspension, subject to several conditions, and avoided having the suspension reported to the California Medical Board. His wife separately claimed loss of consortium due to the defendants’ actions. The Superior Court of Riverside County reviewed the case and granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that the physician had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him through the hospital’s peer review process before suing for damages. The trial court also partially granted the defendants’ motion for attorney fees based on a provision in the hospital’s bylaws, but denied fees against the wife, and reduced the fee amounts for certain attorneys. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the judgment and the postjudgment order. The court held that the physician did not establish he was excused from exhausting his administrative remedies, as the agreement to lift his suspension was conditional and did not provide the maximum relief available through the peer review process. The court also upheld the attorney fee award to defendants under the bylaws, finding the fee provision valid and not preempted by statute, and concluded that the trial court correctly denied fees against the wife and for certain attorney billing records. View "Sujan v. UHS Corona" on Justia Law

DOE V. GITHUB, INC.

2026-09-16T08:30:45-08:00

Programmers who published open-source code on GitHub sued GitHub, Microsoft, and various OpenAI entities, alleging that GitHub Copilot and Codex—AI tools trained on publicly available code from GitHub—reproduce portions of their code without attribution. These programmers claimed that the AI’s omission of copyright management information (CMI), such as attribution and license terms required by open-source licenses, violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), specifically 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b). Plaintiffs alleged that Copilot’s outputs sometimes consist of verbatim or near-verbatim reproductions of their code, but the AI-generated outputs do not include the original CMI. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California reviewed the case and dismissed the DMCA claims under Rule 12(b)(6, first with leave to amend and then with prejudice, concluding that plaintiffs failed to allege that Copilot’s outputs were “identical” to their code and that only identical copies from which CMI had been removed could support a DMCA claim. The court allowed breach of contract claims to proceed. It certified the DMCA dismissal for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), noting the issue of whether § 1202(b) imposes an identicality requirement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that plaintiffs had Article III standing due to a plausible risk of injury. However, it determined that under their “output” theory, Copilot and Codex do not “remove or alter” CMI from copies of existing protected works; instead, they generate new works that never contained CMI. The court declined to consider the plaintiffs’ “input” theory as it was forfeited. The main holding is that generating new works without CMI does not violate § 1202(b) of the DMCA. View "DOE V. GITHUB, INC." on Justia Law

ISLAND CREEK ASSOCIATES, LLC v. US

2026-09-16T06:00:55-08:00

Island Creek Associates, LLC was awarded a multiple award contract (MAC) known as SeaPort-NxG by the United States Navy, alongside two other companies, Don Selvy Enterprises, Inc. (DSE) and Precise Systems Inc., each receiving contracts on identical terms. In 2022, DSE and Precise formed a joint venture, Secise, under the Small Business Administration’s Mentor-Protégé Program (MPP). In 2024, the Navy issued a modification to the SeaPort-NxG MAC, allowing MPP joint ventures, as well as their mentor and protégé members, to each hold a separate MAC, creating an exception to the previous “One Prime Contract Per Company” rule. Following this modification and the issuance of a task order to Secise, Island Creek filed a five-count complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, raising challenges to the contract modification, its implementation, and an alleged organizational conflict of interest involving a Navy contracting official and a Precise employee. After Island Creek’s complaint, the Navy took corrective action by rescinding the challenged portions of the contract modification, thereby reverting to the original rules. The Navy then moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the corrective action mooted four counts and that the remaining count was barred by statutory restrictions. The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint, holding that Island Creek lacked statutory standing as an “interested party” under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1), but did not rule on mootness or the application of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA). On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but on alternative grounds. The appellate court held that Counts I–III and V were moot due to the Navy’s corrective action, which eradicated the effects of the challenged modification. It further held that Count IV was barred under the FASA’s task order protest provision, 10 U.S.C. § 3406(f), and Island Creek lacked statutory standing to challenge Precise’s award. The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims was affirmed. View "ISLAND CREEK ASSOCIATES, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

Doe v. Smith

2026-09-15T12:30:04-08:00

A plaintiff who won a substantial lottery prize in Maine sought to protect his identity and that of his minor daughter from public disclosure. He entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with the mother of his child, intending to keep details of his lottery win and finances private. After the plaintiff believed the NDA was breached, he sued for injunctive relief and damages in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Throughout the proceedings, both parties were initially allowed to litigate under pseudonyms, and a local news organization intervened to advocate for public access. As trial approached, the plaintiff moved to close the courtroom to the public and to continue using pseudonyms, arguing that disclosure could jeopardize his family’s safety and his daughter’s privacy. The District Court for the District of Maine denied both requests. It issued a detailed opinion emphasizing the strong presumption of public access to judicial proceedings, citing common-law tradition and relevant federal rules. The court found that while the case involved sensitive financial and familial information, such concerns did not outweigh the public’s right to access. The court determined that the plaintiff’s wealth and desire for privacy did not constitute “unusually severe harm” justifying deviation from established principles. Additionally, the court noted that any potential harm to the minor child would be mitigated by identifying her only by initials, a standard protocol. The plaintiff timely appealed these rulings. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case under the abuse of discretion standard. It affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that neither the plaintiff’s wealth nor purported risks to his family met the exceptional circumstances required for trial closure or continued pseudonymity. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s balancing of public access against privacy interests and awarded costs to the appellees. View "Doe v. Smith" on Justia Law

Megalomedia v. Philadelphia Indemnity

2026-09-14T09:30:08-08:00

A television production company maintained insurance coverage for its shows, including one chronicling the struggles of obese individuals to lose weight. In 2011, the insurer added an exclusion to the general liability portion of the policy, barring coverage for “any/all reality shows.” The company did not object to this exclusion. Years later, several participants or their families sued the production company for injuries allegedly arising from the show’s filming. The insurer refused to defend or indemnify the company, citing the “reality show” exclusion. The insurer brought a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking confirmation that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. The production company counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and violations of Texas consumer protection statutes. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the exclusion unambiguously barred coverage for bodily injuries arising from reality shows like the one at issue. At a subsequent bench trial, the district court rejected the company’s fraud and statutory claims, finding no misrepresentation by the insurer and concluding the company could not have justifiably relied on any representation given its knowledge of the exclusion and the show’s nature. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Fifth Circuit held that the company forfeited its argument about the ambiguity of "reality show" by not raising it in the district court and, in fact, previously represented the show as a “reality show.” The appellate court also found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings rejecting the fraud and consumer protection claims, noting substantial evidence of the company’s understanding of the exclusion. The district court’s judgment was affirmed in full. View "Megalomedia v. Philadelphia Indemnity" on Justia Law

Cooper-Clark Foundation v. Scout Energy Management

2026-09-11T06:34:03-08:00

The dispute centers on royalty payments under thousands of Kansas oil-and-gas leases. The lessors (royalty owners) claim that the lessees (operators and working interest owners) improperly deducted certain midstream processing costs from royalties paid on natural gas produced from their wells. The lessors argue that, under Kansas law’s implied duty to market, lessees must bear all costs necessary to make raw gas “marketable” before calculating royalties, and that gas is only marketable when it meets the requirements of the market where it is actually sold (in this case, the interstate pipeline market). The lessees respond that gas can be marketable at the wellhead even if not actually sold there, and that processing merely enhances value rather than making the gas marketable, so post-production costs may be shared with royalty owners if the lease allows. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas, facing this disagreement and noting the absence of controlling Kansas precedent, certified a question to the Kansas Supreme Court regarding when natural gas is considered “marketable” for purposes of royalty obligations and the proper application of the marketable condition rule. The federal court provided a limited factual record and sought guidance on whether marketability depends on the intended or actual market of sale, or if it may occur earlier. The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas held that oil-and-gas leases must be interpreted according to their express terms. If the lease is silent or ambiguous about allocation of costs, the court may apply the marketable condition rule to fill contractual gaps, but this rule does not apply categorically. Determining when gas is “marketable” is a fact-specific inquiry that depends on the particular lease language and surrounding circumstances, and must be decided case-by-case. Express royalty provisions such as “proceeds if sold at the well” or “market value at the well” must be enforced as written and are not displaced by the marketable condition rule. The certified question was answered accordingly. View "Cooper-Clark Foundation v. Scout Energy Management " on Justia Law

Carr v. First Commonwealth Bank

2026-09-10T11:36:25-08:00

Three individuals deposited approximately $85,000 into a joint account with a bank. When one of the depositors became subject to a civil judgment in an unrelated matter, the judgment creditor garnished the account. The bank paid about $38,000 from the joint account to the creditor without seeking the depositors’ permission. The depositors sued the bank for breach of contract and fiduciary duty in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which compelled arbitration under the account agreement. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the bank and awarded attorney fees. After the award, the bank sought confirmation of the arbitration award. The depositors’ attorney missed the 30-day deadline to seek judicial review due to a family emergency, specifically the unexpected death of his stepson. The depositors’ counsel filed a motion for nunc pro tunc relief in the Court of Common Pleas, requesting an extension to file for review. The court granted an additional 20 days. Counsel filed the belated appeal, and the court vacated the attorney fee award but otherwise affirmed the arbitration award. The bank appealed. The Pennsylvania Superior Court, after remanding for an unrelated issue, considered cross-appeals. The depositors argued due process violations during arbitration, while the bank contended the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the award after the statutory deadline and erred in granting nunc pro tunc relief. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the “non-negligent happenstance” exception to statutory filing deadlines—established in Bass v. Commonwealth—remained viable and whether it applied to the attorney’s family emergency. The Court held that the statutory 30-day period in 42 Pa.C.S. § 7342(b) is mandatory and not subject to an equitable, non-negligent-happenstance exception absent express statutory language. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s order, disapproving Bass as a basis for extending arbitration review deadlines without legislative authorization. View "Carr v. First Commonwealth Bank" on Justia Law

Hello Farms Licensing MI, LLC v. GR Vending MI, LLC

2026-09-10T11:00:07-08:00

A Michigan marijuana grower entered into a contract with two subsidiaries of a larger company to supply all marijuana grown in its 2020 and 2021 harvests. At the time of contracting, the grower was licensed by Michigan to produce medical marijuana, while the buyers held both medical and recreational licenses. The contract required the marijuana to meet recreational testing standards, and the buyers paid a deposit. After the initial shipment, the buyers refused further deliveries due to a price drop, prompting the grower to sell the remaining harvests to other entities at lower prices. The grower sued the buyers for breach of contract in Michigan state court, seeking lost profits. The buyers removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, raised counterclaims, and asserted that the contract was unenforceable due to federal illegality. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied the buyers’ illegality defense and allowed the case to proceed to trial. A jury found the buyers liable and awarded substantial damages to the grower. The buyers renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law and requested a new trial, again arguing federal illegality. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that federal courts cannot enforce contracts founded on agreements to commit conduct that is explicitly prohibited by federal law, such as distribution and possession of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. Because the contract was not limited to medical use and encompassed conduct criminalized under federal law, the court found the contract unenforceable. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the buyers’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. View "Hello Farms Licensing MI, LLC v. GR Vending MI, LLC" on Justia Law

VERSATA SOFTWARE, LLC v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

2026-09-10T07:00:50-08:00

Ford hired Versata to develop software for vehicle configuration, resulting in two products: Automotive Configuration Manager (ACM) and Materials Cost Analytics (MCA). In 2004, the parties entered into a licensing agreement called the Master Subscription and Services Agreement (MSSA). When the MSSA expired in 2014 and negotiations failed, Ford developed its own software, PDO, while still licensing Versata’s products. Ford sought a declaratory judgment that it had not infringed Versata’s rights. Versata counterclaimed, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets (specifically three combination secrets within ACM) and breach of contract. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan excluded testimony from Versata’s damages expert regarding trade secret damages, limiting Versata to damages based on the parties’ licensing history. At trial, a jury found Ford liable for trade secret misappropriation (of ACM, not MCA) and breach of contract, awarding Versata $22,386,000 for misappropriation and $82,260,000 for breach. Post-trial, the district court reduced both awards, setting trade secret damages to $0 and breach damages to $3, reasoning that the jury lacked sufficient evidentiary basis for their calculations. The district court denied Ford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. It held that Versata was entitled to pursue unjust enrichment damages under both the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and the district court erred in precluding this. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court's judgment on trade secret damages, remanding for a new trial with instructions to consider previously excluded damages models. For breach of contract, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s reduction and reinstated the jury’s $82,260,000 award. It affirmed the district court’s denial of Ford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding liability for trade secret misappropriation. View "VERSATA SOFTWARE, LLC v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY " on Justia Law

Buchheim v. Anaya

2026-09-09T13:09:07-08:00

Two families who had worked together for two decades in home renovation projects developed a dispute after collaborating on the purchase and remodeling of a property known as the Rose home. One couple provided financing, while the other managed the remodeling. Their financial arrangement involved consolidating an outstanding debt from a previous project with new loans for the Rose property into a single promissory note, secured by a deed of trust. The relationship deteriorated over disagreements about the remodeling approach, leading to negotiations for the lender to purchase the property from the remodelers. The transaction closed with the lender receiving a substantial sum from escrow to pay off the promissory note. After the transaction, the lender claimed that the remodelers had not properly repaid the debt, despite the escrow transfer. The lender filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, asserting multiple causes of action including breach of contract and fraud. The remodelers moved for summary judgment, contending that the lender had been fully repaid and that a covenant not to sue barred the claims. The Superior Court granted summary judgment, finding that the debt was repaid and the lender suffered no damages, and entered judgment in favor of the remodelers. Upon appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, independently reviewed the record and affirmed the judgment. The court held that undisputed objective evidence showed the debt had been fully repaid through the escrow process, and that the lender’s subjective assertions were insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute. The court further found that arguments concerning other damages were forfeited because they had not been raised below. The judgment in favor of the remodelers was affirmed, and costs were awarded to the respondents. View "Buchheim v. Anaya" on Justia Law

SPECTRUM GULF COAST, LLC v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

2026-09-09T10:15:03-08:00

A public utility owned by a municipality owned poles used for distributing electric power. Other companies, such as telephone and cable providers, attached their equipment to these poles under agreements with the utility. In 1984, one such agreement allowed a cable company’s predecessor to attach equipment in exchange for an annual fee, with an escalator clause for potential increases. The contract required both parties to comply with all applicable laws that affected their rights and obligations. Over time, the cable company (later known as Spectrum) paid increasing rates, while another company (AT&T) continued to pay the original rate. After changes to state law in 2005 prohibited discrimination in pole-attachment rates and capped those rates at a federal maximum, the utility began invoicing both companies at the higher rate. Spectrum paid the higher invoices, but AT&T continued to pay the older, lower rate. Legal disputes ensued. Spectrum sued the utility, arguing the utility had breached the contract and violated statutory requirements by charging discriminatory rates. After initial proceedings before the Public Utility Commission and the trial court, the Third Court of Appeals held that the utility had not violated the statute because it had invoiced both companies at the same rate, and the Thirteenth Court of Appeals later ruled that the contract did not incorporate new statutory requirements arising after the agreement’s formation. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case. It determined that the parties’ contract, by its express language, incorporated future changes in law affecting the parties’ rights and obligations. The court held that the relevant statutory provisions applied to the agreement and that Spectrum could pursue its breach-of-contract claim based on the utility’s alleged failure to comply with these laws. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "SPECTRUM GULF COAST, LLC v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO" on Justia Law

Eriakha v. University of MS

2026-09-09T09:30:07-08:00

Twin brothers, both Black international students, were enrolled as doctoral candidates at the University of Mississippi’s Department of Pharmacy Administration. One brother, Bennard, disagreed with changes to his faculty mentorship arrangement, objected to mandatory in-person meetings, and declined to complete a required program assessment called the Abilities Transcript. After being repeatedly warned and given extensions, he was placed on provisional status for failing to complete the requirement, which also caused the loss of his graduate assistantship. Bennard and his brother each filed lawsuits against the University and several faculty members, alleging constitutional, statutory, and contract violations related to academic sanctions and alleged discriminatory treatment. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi consolidated the brothers’ cases. It dismissed Bennard’s claims against the University on sovereign-immunity grounds, dismissed his remaining federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his individual-capacity state contract claims. Bennard appealed, while his brother’s appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed Bennard’s remaining claims. The court held that sovereign immunity barred claims against the University, claims against one defendant in her official capacity, and official-capacity state-law contract claims; those dismissals must be without prejudice. The court further found that Bennard failed to plausibly allege First or Fourteenth Amendment violations, and that the faculty defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on individual-capacity claims. The court affirmed the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining contract claims and upheld consolidation of the cases and dismissal of moot preliminary injunction motions. The judgment was affirmed as modified to clarify the proper form of dismissal for sovereign-immunity-barred claims. View "Eriakha v. University of MS" on Justia Law

Hudson Revocable Trust v. Freedom Pass

2026-09-08T14:36:06-08:00

In this case, a dispute arose over membership interests in Freedom Pass Partners, LLC, which owns undeveloped property near Big Sky, Montana. Carol Hudson, through her estate and beneficiaries Alan and Jeffrey Johnson, claimed that Hudson funded the purchase of the property based on assurances she would be a member of Freedom Pass. After Hudson’s death, her sons, acting as trustees and beneficiaries of her trust, filed suit asserting multiple claims including breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion, alleging Hudson’s investment entitled her to membership or ownership interests. The Eighteenth Judicial District Court reviewed the claims and granted summary judgment for Freedom Pass Partners, LLC. It found that the Johnsons lacked standing because the estate’s personal representative had not joined the litigation, and concluded that all claims were time-barred based on the statute of limitations. The court also denied Johnsons’ motions to amend the complaint, to compel discovery identifying a prospective property buyer, and for relief from judgment regarding the dissolution of a lis pendens notice. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s decisions de novo for summary judgment and for abuse of discretion on the remaining motions. It held that genuine disputes of material fact existed about whether Hudson knew or should have known she was not a member of Freedom Pass, particularly given conflicting evidence and potential concealment or fiduciary duties. The Supreme Court also found the denial of leave to amend the complaint was an abuse of discretion because adding the estate’s personal representative could cure the standing defect. The denial of discovery and failure to consider mootness regarding the lis pendens were also found to be abuses of discretion. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s rulings and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hudson Revocable Trust v. Freedom Pass" on Justia Law

I F G Port v. Lake Charles Harbor

2026-09-08T09:30:17-08:00

A dispute arose between a company and a port authority over responsibility for securing permits to dredge a ship channel in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The company had leased the channel to develop a grain terminal, but the lease did not specify which party was responsible for obtaining the dredging permit. After the terminal was built but could not be fully used without dredging, the company and the port disagreed over who bore this responsibility. The company sued in federal court, and, by consent of both parties, a U.S. Magistrate Judge presided over a bench trial and awarded the company nearly $125 million. After the trial and the entry of judgment, the port discovered that the magistrate judge and the company’s lead trial counsel had been close family friends for four decades—a relationship that was not fully disclosed. The only disclosure had been that the lead counsel’s daughter was the judge’s law clerk, who would be screened from the case. Upon learning about the undisclosed relationship, the port moved to vacate the magistrate judge referral. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held an evidentiary hearing and found that the port’s consent to the referral had not been knowing, as it had lacked crucial information about the judge’s conflict, and vacated the referral. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The Fifth Circuit held that a party’s consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction waives a fundamental constitutional right and, therefore, must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The court rejected the argument that constructive knowledge by the party’s counsel—rather than actual knowledge—could suffice to establish valid consent. Because the district court applied the correct standard and found no actual knowledge, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the vacation of the referral. View "I F G Port v. Lake Charles Harbor" on Justia Law

WPX Energy Williston, LLC v. Jones

2026-09-04T07:30:11-08:00

WPX Energy, a non-Indian oil and gas company, obtained rights-of-way from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to access land owned by members of the Three Affiliated Tribes on the Fort Berthold Reservation. The Fettigs, tribal members and landowners, consented to the grants and also entered into side letter agreements with WPX Energy, imposing conditions such as prohibiting smoking and hunting, and specifying fines for violations. In 2020, the Fettigs filed suit in the Three Affiliated Tribes District Court, alleging WPX Energy violated the no-smoking provision. WPX Energy argued that the tribal court lacked jurisdiction, as it is a non-Indian entity, but the tribal district court, through Judge Jones, found it had jurisdiction under the Montana consensual relationship exception. The Fettigs also pursued an administrative claim with the Bureau, which was denied on the basis that the side letter agreements were not incorporated into the grants. WPX Energy sought a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, claiming the tribal court lacked jurisdiction. The district court granted the injunction, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit previously vacated it, requiring exhaustion of tribal remedies. After the Three Affiliated Tribes Supreme Court affirmed tribal jurisdiction, WPX Energy again sought relief in federal court, which again granted a preliminary injunction. Judge Jones appealed this second grant. On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the tribal court had jurisdiction under the first Montana exception because the dispute arose from a commercial relationship created by the side letter agreements, which were independently negotiated and not governed by federal law. The court also found that normal litigation costs did not constitute irreparable harm. The Eighth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. View "WPX Energy Williston, LLC v. Jones" on Justia Law

In re Estate of Mueller

2026-09-04T06:34:13-08:00

A woman executed a will leaving most of her estate to her daughter-in-law, Cheryl, and nearly disinheriting her two surviving children, Margo and Gary. Prior to her death, Margo became her guardian and conservator, and initiated legal action against Cheryl for alleged financial exploitation. The parties settled, with Cheryl confessing judgment for a sum of money, but the settlement agreement stipulated that neither Margo nor the estate would seek to collect on the judgment. The will contained a Nebraska choice-of-law provision, and after the woman passed away in Kansas, the dispute over distribution of her estate and the effect of the confessed judgment continued in both Kansas and Nebraska courts. The Sedgwick District Court in Kansas initially granted Margo and Gary’s request to set off Cheryl’s confessed judgment against her share of the estate. Cheryl then sought ancillary probate in Nebraska, where the court distributed Nebraska property to her and, after interpreting the settlement agreement, denied Margo and Gary's setoff claim. Based on this Nebraska ruling, the Kansas district court reconsidered and denied the setoff request, ordering distribution pursuant to the will. Margo and Gary appealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Cheryl's confessed judgment was a debt owed to the estate and must be set off under Kansas law. The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the appeal. It held that a right of setoff against a beneficiary’s distributive share requires an actual debt owed to the estate. Because the Nebraska court had interpreted the settlement agreement to mean Cheryl’s confessed judgment was not a debt due and owing to the estate, the Kansas Supreme Court deferred to that interpretation under principles of comity and Nebraska law. Consequently, there was no debt subject to setoff, and the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court’s denial of setoff. View "In re Estate of Mueller " on Justia Law

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. v. US

2026-09-04T06:30:52-08:00

A group of utility companies operating nuclear power plants in Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts entered into contracts with the Department of Energy (DOE) requiring DOE to dispose of their spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in exchange for fees paid into a federal fund. DOE failed to meet its obligations, resulting in the utilities retaining and storing SNF on-site beyond their planned plant decommissioning. To ensure funds for safe decommissioning and continued SNF storage, the utilities established nuclear decommissioning trusts (NDTs), funded by electricity ratepayers and managed according to federal regulations. These trusts generated significant investment gains, which were used to pay for ongoing SNF storage expenses. Previously, the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found DOE in partial, ongoing breach of the contracts, awarding damages to the utilities for costs incurred due to the breach. In the current claim period (2017–2021), the utilities sought reimbursement for $145 million in SNF storage costs. DOE conceded liability but argued that the investment gains from the NDTs should be credited against damages, effectively reducing its liability to zero. The Court of Federal Claims rejected this argument, granting summary judgment to the utilities and entering judgment for the full $145 million, subject to appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment de novo. It held that the investment gains from the NDTs are not “mitigation” of damages and cannot be set off against the utilities’ breach-induced expenses, because the gains did not reduce or avoid losses caused by DOE’s breach and were not directly related to the breach. The court affirmed the judgment, requiring DOE to reimburse the utilities for their SNF storage costs without offset for NDT investment earnings. View "CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. v. US" on Justia Law

Conger v. Clark

2026-09-04T06:02:38-08:00

A dispute arose between two parties over a residential lease agreement in Mountain Home, Idaho, which included an option to purchase the property after the underlying Wells Fargo mortgage was satisfied. The lessee paid $8,000 for the purchase option and began residing at the property. Eighteen months later, the lessee filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing the lessor as a creditor and rent as an expense but denying any legal or equitable interest in real property and failing to disclose the lease agreement or the purchase option in the bankruptcy schedules. The bankruptcy trustee closed the case without distributing any assets, and the lessee received a discharge of debts. Four years after discharge, the lessee attempted to exercise the purchase option, but the lessor refused. The lessee filed suit in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, seeking specific performance and declaratory relief, while the lessor counterclaimed for breach of contract. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court initially denied both motions, finding factual disputes, and declined to apply judicial estoppel. Upon reconsideration, the district court ruled for the lessor, holding that the lessee’s claims were barred by judicial estoppel and, in the alternative, that the lessee lacked standing because the undisclosed purchase option remained property of the bankruptcy estate. The district court denied the lessee’s request to stay the proceedings to reopen the bankruptcy case. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the lessee lacked standing to enforce the purchase option. The court reasoned that the purchase option was property of the bankruptcy estate, was not properly disclosed in the bankruptcy schedules, and thus remained with the estate after the bankruptcy case closed. Only the bankruptcy trustee, not the lessee, had standing to enforce the option. Costs on appeal were awarded to the lessor. View "Conger v. Clark" on Justia Law

Williams v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

2026-09-04T04:31:00-08:00

Dr. Lesley Williams, a second-year anesthesiology resident at Augusta University, experienced a traumatic assault and was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD. She requested modified duties and accommodations, but the residency program placed her in observer roles and required fitness-for-duty evaluations. Williams filed complaints regarding denial of academic credit and alleged discrimination based on sex and disability. Faculty raised concerns about her professionalism, clinical judgment, and exam conduct. Williams was suspended and ultimately terminated from the residency program after loss of clinical privileges, but an ad hoc committee initially recommended reinstatement with zero tolerance for further unprofessional behavior. Following further faculty concerns, Williams was again suspended and terminated. Williams appealed her termination through Augusta University’s internal procedures. The ad hoc committee found her clinical evaluations were generally adequate, but noted serious concerns about exam misconduct. Dean Hess ordered her reinstatement with strict conditions, but after additional negative evaluations and faculty meetings, Williams was suspended and terminated for patient safety reasons. She appealed to the University President and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, both of whom upheld her termination. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board of Regents on Williams’s claims, which included sex discrimination, retaliation, disability discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, denial of procedural due process, and breach of contract. The Eleventh Circuit held that Williams failed to establish the required elements for each claim, including the lack of similarly situated comparators, absence of evidence supporting discriminatory or retaliatory intent, and insufficient support for procedural or contractual violations. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on all claims. View "Williams v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia" on Justia Law

Quinn, Racusin & Gazzola Chartered v. Pavich Law Group, P.C.

2026-09-03T09:32:31-08:00

Four law firms jointly represented a client in a federal court case against Iraq, resulting in a substantial judgment in favor of their client. Prior to seeking attorneys’ fees, the firms executed an Agreement Concerning Attorneys’ Fees (ACAF), which provided for a forty-six percent contingency fee and included an arbitration clause. Disputes arose regarding the allocation of the fee, particularly after some firms allegedly negotiated a side agreement to increase their shares. One firm, believing its share was subject to future negotiation, did not seek fees in arbitration and was awarded none by the arbitrator. After the arbitration, Quinn, Racusin & Gazzola Chartered (QRG) moved in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to vacate the arbitrator’s final award, arguing the ACAF was invalid due to fraudulent inducement and duress, and that the arbitrator had exceeded the scope of authority under the agreement. Appellees disputed these claims and sought confirmation of the award. The Superior Court determined that QRG had not established fraud or duress and found the arbitration clause broad enough to encompass both the fee allocation dispute and related tort claims. The court denied QRG’s motion to vacate and confirmed the arbitration award. On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the legal conclusions regarding fraud, duress, and the scope of the arbitration clause. The court held that QRG failed to demonstrate fraudulent inducement or duress in execution of the arbitration clause. It further held that the arbitrator acted within the scope of the ACAF’s arbitration clause, which covered the fee allocation dispute and related tort claims. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment confirming the arbitrator’s final award. View "Quinn, Racusin & Gazzola Chartered v. Pavich Law Group, P.C." on Justia Law

Pennsylvania Insurance Co. v. Federal Express Corp.

2026-09-03T07:30:26-08:00

Sonia Breslow purchased a $250,000 watch from Jacob & Company, which was shipped from New York to the Iron Horse Golf Club in Montana. The Club repackaged the shipment and sent it via Federal Express (FedEx) “priority overnight” to a UPS store in Arizona. The shipping label did not declare a value for the package. Video evidence showed that after FedEx took possession, the yellow bag containing two boxes was no longer secured by a zip tie, and at the Scottsdale facility, an employee removed one box from the bag. Ultimately, FedEx delivered the bag to the UPS store, but the watch was missing. Sonia filed an insurance claim, and Pennsylvania Insurance paid the Breslows the purchase price, then sued FedEx as their subrogee. Pennsylvania Insurance initially brought claims for negligence, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and civil theft in Nebraska state court. FedEx removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The district court ruled that the Airline Deregulation Act preempted the claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, and civil theft, dismissed the conversion claim for lack of evidence, and found breach of contract but limited FedEx’s liability under the shipping contract to $100. The case proceeded to a bench trial, where the court found the breach and upheld the liability limit, entering judgment for Pennsylvania Insurance in the amount of $100. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court held that the Airline Deregulation Act preempts state-law claims relating to FedEx’s package handling and transportation services. It found no error in the district court’s dismissal of the conversion claim and upheld the liability limit of $100, concluding that the Club had adequate notice and opportunity to purchase greater coverage. The court also affirmed that Pennsylvania Insurance had standing as subrogee and that FedEx breached the contract. View "Pennsylvania Insurance Co. v. Federal Express Corp." on Justia Law

HAVENS VS. DIST. CT.

2026-09-03T07:08:11-08:00

A former employee entered into a noncompete agreement with his employer, which barred him from engaging in similar business activities for 12 months within the company’s client base area after his employment ended in April 2024. Months later, the employer alleged that the former employee and his new business violated the agreement and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction to enforce it. After the parties exchanged filings, the district court issued a TRO in June 2025, set to remain in effect indefinitely, and delayed the hearing on the preliminary injunction multiple times, citing new evidence related to a superseding noncompete agreement. The district court clarified the TRO’s scope, found the petitioners in contempt for violating it, and denied their motion to dissolve the TRO. The court eventually allowed the employer to amend its complaint to reflect the new agreement and later issued an amended TRO. A preliminary injunction was finally issued in April 2026. The petitioners challenged the original TRO by writ petition, arguing that it exceeded the 14-day limit allowed by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b). The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and clarified that, under NRCP 65(b)(2), the 14-day time limit applies to TROs regardless of whether they are issued with or without notice. The court held that a TRO cannot be indefinite and must expire after 14 days unless properly extended for good cause or by consent. Because the district court’s TRO was indefinite and not properly extended, it automatically expired 14 days after issuance. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the writ of mandamus and directed the district court to declare the TRO expired as of June 23, 2025. View "HAVENS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

Farooqui v. Silkwave Holdings Ltd.

2026-09-03T06:31:43-08:00

The case involves a dispute between an individual who spent several years assisting a businessman and his associates in acquiring satellites, with the expectation of future compensation. The parties discussed compensation on various occasions, culminating in an oral agreement that included equity interests and a corporate position for the plaintiff. However, the agreement was never formalized in writing, and the promises were not fulfilled. The plaintiff eventually filed suit seeking compensation for his efforts under several legal theories, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and fraud. In the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the case went through several judges. Initially, summary judgment was denied, but after rulings that excluded certain witness testimony—especially the plaintiff’s damages expert—the court ultimately granted summary judgment for the defendants on most claims. The claims for unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel survived, but the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed them to expedite an appeal. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the summary judgment rulings. The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the statute of frauds barred the breach of contract and implied contract claims, as the alleged oral agreement could not be performed within one year and no exception applied. The court upheld summary judgment on the fraud claim due to insufficient evidence of fraudulent intent. However, the court reversed summary judgment on the unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact that should be resolved by a factfinder. The appellate court also upheld restrictions on certain lay testimony but vacated limitations on the expert’s damages testimony, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Farooqui v. Silkwave Holdings Ltd." on Justia Law

Stallion Springs Medical Services v. Super. Ct.

2026-09-02T14:31:55-08:00

A licensed emergency room physician entered into an independent contractor agreement with a medical staffing company to provide services at a hospital’s emergency department. After a patient complained about the physician’s conduct, the hospital instructed the staffing company to remove him from the schedule, and the company subsequently terminated his agreement following its own investigation. The physician brought suit against the hospital, its medical staff, and the staffing company, alleging that his removal from the schedule occurred without the notice or hearing required by statutory and common law fair procedure rights. The claims against the hospital and medical staff were settled and dismissed, leaving the staffing company as the sole defendant. The Superior Court of Kern County considered the staffing company’s motion for summary judgment. The court denied summary judgment, granted summary adjudication in favor of the staffing company on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, but denied summary adjudication on the claim for violation of the common law right of fair procedure, allowing that claim to proceed. The staffing company then sought a writ of mandate from the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, challenging the denial as to the fair procedure claim. The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, held that the common law right of fair procedure does not apply to the staffing company as a matter of law. The court reasoned that the staffing company was not a quasi-public institution or peer review body as defined by statute, nor did it have the power to foreclose the physician’s ability to practice medicine broadly. The court ordered that the trial court’s denial of summary judgment be vacated and that judgment be entered for the staffing company on all claims. The stay previously issued was lifted, and the staffing company was awarded costs in the proceeding. View "Stallion Springs Medical Services v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Buchheim v. Anaya

2026-09-02T13:31:28-08:00

Two families with a close personal and professional relationship engaged in house-flipping ventures, with one couple (the lenders) providing funds and the other (the remodelers) managing renovations. In 2016, the lenders provided funds for a home project called the Cleveland property, followed by another project, the Rose property, with intertwined finances. The parties consolidated outstanding debts into a single promissory note secured by a deed of trust and set a balloon payment due in March 2018. Disagreements arose about the scope of renovations for the Rose property, leading to a breakdown in their relationship and ultimately litigation. Despite negotiating a purchase agreement and a covenant not to sue, the lenders later claimed that the remodelers had not fully repaid the loan. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted summary judgment in favor of the remodelers. The trial court found that undisputed evidence showed the lenders had received repayment of the consolidated promissory note through an escrow transfer after purchasing the Rose property. The court also found, in the alternative, that the covenant not to sue barred the lenders’ claims. Partial judgment was initially entered, and after the remodelers dismissed their cross-complaint, final judgment was entered in their favor. The lenders appealed, and the Court of Appeal had previously affirmed a partial judgment in an unpublished opinion, citing deficiencies in the lenders’ opening brief. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case independently and affirmed the judgment. The court held that uncontroverted evidence established full repayment of the debt, so the lenders suffered no damages. The lenders’ subjective and unexplained assertions did not create a triable issue of fact. Arguments about other alleged damages were forfeited for lack of timely presentation to the trial court. The judgment was affirmed and costs were awarded to the respondents. View "Buchheim v. Anaya" on Justia Law

Instituto Medico del Norte, Inc. v. Greengift Capital, LLC

2026-09-02T13:00:03-08:00

A medical institution in Puerto Rico borrowed over $10 million from a bank in 1984 to build a hospital, but soon disputes arose regarding the loan. The bank claimed the institution defaulted, while the institution asserted the bank failed to disburse funds as required. Litigation and bankruptcy proceedings followed. In 1991, the parties settled, but the terms of that settlement—whether the debt was split into interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing portions—remained contested. Over the next decades, the loan changed hands, and in 2013 the institution filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy again. The current loan-holder claimed a significantly higher outstanding balance than the institution believed was owed, due in part to differing interpretations of the 1991 agreement and subsequent bankruptcy plan. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico previously addressed these disputes. It issued orders requiring the institution to demonstrate, with evidence, that the 1991 agreement created a non-interest-bearing note and that it had made payments in accordance with the bankruptcy plan. The court denied discovery, required summary judgment briefing, and ultimately issued an order with minimal analysis, granting the loan-holder’s motion to dismiss and denying the institution’s motion for summary judgment. The court’s reasoning was ambiguous, referencing both summary judgment and pleading standards, and did not clearly identify the basis for its decision. On appeal, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico affirmed, concluding the bankruptcy plan did not incorporate the 1991 bifurcated note arrangement. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, reviewing the case, found the bankruptcy court’s order insufficiently reasoned to permit meaningful appellate review. The First Circuit vacated the lower courts’ decisions and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the bankruptcy court to clarify its reasoning, identify the applicable legal standards, and consider whether summary judgment or further fact-finding is appropriate. View "Instituto Medico del Norte, Inc. v. Greengift Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

County of Westchester v. Express Scripts

2026-09-02T06:30:15-08:00

Several counties and municipalities in New York initiated lawsuits in state courts against two pharmacy benefit managers, Express Scripts, Inc. and OptumRx, Inc., alleging that these companies contributed to the opioid epidemic in their communities. The claims are based on state law and center on the defendants’ alleged practices in negotiating with opioid manufacturers and managing prescription formularies, which plaintiffs contend led to an oversupply of prescription opioids and caused substantial public harm and government expense. The defendants removed the cases to federal court—the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York—arguing removal was proper under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), because some of the challenged conduct was performed under contracts with federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense (TRICARE), the Office of Personnel Management (FEHBP), and the Veterans Health Administration. After removal, the plaintiffs amended their complaints to disclaim any claims based on the defendants’ work for federal clients, seeking to have the cases remanded to state court. The district courts accepted the disclaimers and remanded the cases. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district courts’ decisions. It concluded that the disclaimers were ineffective because the alleged wrongful conduct and resulting harms could not be separated between federal and non-federal clients; the conduct was indivisible. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, the Second Circuit held that the defendants satisfied all statutory requirements for federal officer removal: they acted under federal direction, were sued for acts relating to federal authority, and asserted colorable federal defenses. The Second Circuit therefore reversed the remand orders and returned the cases to the district courts for further proceedings. View "County of Westchester v. Express Scripts" on Justia Law

Trireme Energy Development v. RWE Renewables

2026-09-01T06:00:03-08:00

This case concerns a dispute between two sophisticated energy companies over a merger agreement. In December 2017, Trireme entered into an agreement with Innogy Renewables US, LLC, a subsidiary of a German energy company, to transfer valuable development companies related to wind and solar projects in exchange for an upfront payment and the possibility of future milestone payments. The agreement included provisions restricting Innogy from transferring these assets without Trireme’s consent. After a complex asset swap and corporate restructuring involving Innogy’s parent company and other entities, Trireme alleged that the assets were transferred within the corporate family in violation of the agreement. Previously, Trireme filed a lawsuit—referred to as Trireme I—in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging breaches of other sections of the merger agreement but not the section concerning asset transfers. Later, Trireme sought to amend its complaint to add this new breach-of-contract claim. The district court denied the motion to amend, finding that Trireme had not acted diligently to discover the claim and was on notice of the potential breach before filing the initial action. Trireme did not pursue an appeal of this denial but instead filed a new lawsuit asserting the same claim. The district court dismissed the new case on grounds of res judicata. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that when a party seeks to assert a claim in a new action after unsuccessfully moving to amend its complaint in a prior action, courts should consider several factors, including whether the denial was on the merits, whether the plaintiff failed to appeal, the timing of the claim, the plaintiff’s diligence, and whether the plaintiff was represented by counsel. Applying these factors, the Second Circuit concluded that res judicata barred Trireme’s new claim and affirmed the judgment. View "Trireme Energy Development v. RWE Renewables" on Justia Law

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. STB

2026-08-31T07:30:16-08:00

A municipal corporation operating a large regional commuter rail system in the Chicago area provided rail service on lines owned by a freight rail company. For decades, this service was conducted under a series of agreements, but in 2019, the freight rail company announced it would cease operating the commuter trains. Following litigation, the freight company obtained a declaratory judgment that it had no ongoing obligation to provide such service. While the commuter rail operator began transitioning to run the service itself, the parties failed to reach agreement on compensation for continued use of the lines. With no long-term agreement in place and negotiations at an impasse, the commuter rail operator applied to the federal Surface Transportation Board for terminal trackage rights, which would allow it to use the lines despite the lack of agreement. The Surface Transportation Board granted the application, finding the lines to be terminal facilities for a reasonable distance from the terminal, and that the use would be practicable, in the public interest, and not substantially impair the freight carrier’s operations. The Board did not set compensation or use conditions at that time but pledged to do so retroactively if the parties could not agree. The freight rail company sought review of this decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit held that the Board acted within its statutory authority in granting terminal trackage rights to the commuter operator, including over the full extent of the lines at issue, and properly concluded the public interest was served. However, the court found that the Board erred by granting immediate rights without first ensuring that compensation was paid or adequately secured, as required by statute. The court vacated the Board’s order and remanded for further proceedings, allowing time for the parties to address compensation. View "Union Pacific Railroad Company v. STB" on Justia Law

Jim Daws Trucking, LLC v. Daws, Inc.

2026-08-31T07:30:15-08:00

After purchasing a trucking company through an asset purchase agreement, Jim Daws Trucking, LLC (JDT) alleged that the sellers—James and Lana Daws, Daws, Inc., and other affiliated entities—violated the APA’s noncompete provision by engaging in competing trucking operations. The APA included a $12 million purchase price, with $4.5 million allocated to goodwill, and a five-year noncompete clause barring the sellers from participating in trucking nationwide. After the relationship between Jim Daws and JDT deteriorated, Jim Daws left JDT and communicated with former employees about starting new trucking ventures, allegedly causing JDT to lose significant personnel and drivers. The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted a temporary restraining order, then a preliminary injunction, prohibiting Jim Daws and associates from engaging in trucking or advising new trucking companies nationwide, except for operating certain pre-existing businesses. The district court determined that the noncompete provision was valid and enforceable under Nebraska law, that JDT was likely to prevail on its breach of contract claim, and that irreparable harm existed due to loss of goodwill. The district court also ordered Jim Daws to release $500,000 in funds from an account used for JDT’s operations and set a $480,000 bond based on potential lost revenue. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction, the order to release funds, and the bond amount. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decisions, holding that the noncompete provision was reasonable in scope and duration given the sale of goodwill and the nature of the trucking business. The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings, no abuse of discretion in ordering the release of funds as injunctive relief, and no abuse of discretion in setting the amount of the bond. View "Jim Daws Trucking, LLC v. Daws, Inc." on Justia Law

Gomez-Echeverria v. Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC

2026-08-28T11:00:06-08:00

A group of Guatemalan nationals were recruited under the H-2A visa program by a Michigan agricultural company and its owners to work seasonal jobs between 2017 and 2019. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants illegally charged recruitment fees, underpaid wages, forced them to live in poor conditions, confiscated personal documents, limited their freedom, and threatened them with deportation if they complained. The plaintiffs claimed these actions violated federal anti-trafficking laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Michigan labor and trafficking statutes, and state contract law. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, the case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on most claims, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages, while denying certain claims against one defendant and rejecting the defendants’ counterclaims. The district court denied the defendants’ motions for mistrial, to dismiss for forum non conveniens, for a new trial, and for remittitur of punitive damages. The court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, including damages, attorney fees, and costs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the punitive damages awarded were not grossly excessive or arbitrary and thus did not violate due process, applying the guideposts from BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary rulings, denial of a mistrial, or in allowing the case to proceed in Michigan rather than Guatemala. The court further concluded that alleged statute of limitations defenses were either inapplicable or waived. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "Gomez-Echeverria v. Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC" on Justia Law

Walker v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

2026-08-28T07:01:06-08:00

Cheryl Walker used her Uber account to order a guest ride for her husband, Carroll Walker. Carroll had never downloaded the Uber app or created an account, and he consistently stated that he does not read or reply to text messages. On the relevant occasion, Cheryl ordered a ride for Carroll, and Uber sent Carroll a text message with ride details and a hyperlink to its Terms of Use, which included an arbitration provision. Carroll did not see the message. During the ride, an accident occurred, allegedly due to the driver’s distraction by Uber’s app, resulting in severe injuries to Carroll. In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Cheryl Walker sued Uber on Carroll’s behalf, asserting negligence and products liability claims. Uber moved to compel arbitration, arguing Carroll was bound to arbitrate either because he had notice of the Terms via Uber’s text message or as a third-party beneficiary of Cheryl’s contract with Uber. The district court denied Uber’s motion, finding Uber failed to establish that Carroll was on inquiry notice of the Terms and concluding that Carroll was not bound as a third-party beneficiary or estopped from refusing arbitration. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of Uber’s motion to compel arbitration de novo, applying D.C. contract law. The Court held that Uber had not shown Carroll agreed to be bound by its Terms of Use, as Carroll lacked actual or inquiry notice of the Terms. The Court further determined that Carroll was not bound by Cheryl’s contract as a third-party beneficiary or by equitable estoppel, since Carroll was not seeking to enforce Cheryl’s contract and his claims were independent of it. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Walker v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

T-MOBILE US, INC. v. KAIFI LLC

2026-08-28T06:30:50-08:00

T-Mobile and KAIFI settled a patent infringement lawsuit involving claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,728, which covers Wi-Fi calling technology. As part of their settlement, T-Mobile agreed to make two payments: one immediate payment and another conditional payment, the latter to be made if any of the asserted patent claims “survived” an ex parte reexamination (EPR) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. After the Patent Office confirmed the patentability of most of the asserted claims without amendment, T-Mobile refused to make the additional payment, arguing that the claims had not truly “survived” the EPR due to alleged changes in claim scope and supposed inequitable conduct by KAIFI during the reexamination. T-Mobile filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, seeking a determination that it had not breached the settlement agreement by withholding the payment. The district court granted summary judgment for KAIFI, holding that the settlement agreement was clear: a claim “survives the EPR” if the Patent Office confirms its patentability in the Reexamination Certificate. The court found T-Mobile’s arguments about claim scope and inequitable conduct irrelevant to the payment obligation and ordered T-Mobile to make the additional payment. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the dispute centered on the interpretation of a contract governed by Texas law and did not necessarily involve a substantial question of federal patent law. Consequently, the court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction and transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over appeals from the Eastern District of Texas. View "T-MOBILE US, INC. v. KAIFI LLC " on Justia Law

Srivastava v. BMW of North America

2026-08-27T11:01:25-08:00

A plaintiff leased a new vehicle from a dealership and soon experienced significant problems, including charging failures, starting difficulties, and an event involving fire risk. Despite attempts at repair by the dealership and authorized facilities, the vehicle remained inoperable. The plaintiff’s lease included an arbitration provision broadly defining disputes to include claims concerning the vehicle’s condition and warranties. The plaintiff sued the vehicle manufacturer under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for a range of statutory violations related to the vehicle’s defects and warranty service. The Santa Clara County Superior Court denied the manufacturer’s motion to compel arbitration. The trial court reasoned that the manufacturer could not enforce the arbitration agreement as a third party beneficiary under the rationale of Ford Motor Warranty Cases, because the plaintiff’s statutory claims arose from the manufacturer’s obligations under the Song-Beverly Act, not from the lease itself. The court also rejected the manufacturer’s equitable estoppel argument, and, finding no enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties, declined to address issues of unconscionability or delegation. The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the matter. It held that the manufacturer was in fact a third party beneficiary of the arbitration provision, as the lease explicitly defined the manufacturer as a party entitled to enforce arbitration and covered disputes involving the vehicle’s condition and warranties. The court distinguished the California Supreme Court’s decision in Ford Motor Warranty Cases, finding it inapplicable where the manufacturer is named in the lease. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for the trial court to decide whether the arbitration provision’s delegation clause is unconscionable. The appellate court expressed no opinion on unconscionability, leaving that issue for the trial court. View "Srivastava v. BMW of North America" on Justia Law

Stafford v. State

2026-08-27T10:08:21-08:00

A defendant pleaded guilty to attempted battery with substantial bodily harm, an offense that can be classified as either a gross misdemeanor or a felony. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend the lesser gross misdemeanor classification and a sentence of 225 days in county detention. The plea agreement included a clause stating that if the defendant failed to appear at any subsequent hearing, the State would be released from its promises under the agreement and could argue for any legal sentence. After pleading guilty, the defendant remained in custody but failed to appear at a continued sentencing hearing because he refused transport from jail, for nonmedical reasons. The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County determined that the defendant’s failure to appear constituted a breach of the plea agreement. As a result, the court released the State from its obligations under the agreement, permitting the State to recommend a felony sentence. The State then argued for, and the court imposed, a sentence of 19 to 48 months in prison. The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case and considered whether a failure-to-appear clause in a guilty plea agreement can be enforced against a defendant who remains in custody. The court held that such a clause cannot be enforced against in-custody defendants because they lack control over their appearance in court, and the State retains the means to produce them for hearings. The court vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing before a new judge, instructing the State to abide by its original sentencing recommendation. The sentencing judge remains free to determine the appropriate sentence. View "Stafford v. State" on Justia Law

Rummans v. HSBC Bank

2026-08-26T15:30:08-08:00

The plaintiff financed his home with a VA loan in 2003, qualifying due to his military service. After failing to make payments for at least ten years, the loan was assigned to HSBC Bank USA and serviced by Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (SLS). HSBC eventually foreclosed on the property in 2022 and sold it to Northsky, LLC. The VA Servicing Guidelines, which were incorporated into the mortgage contract, required HSBC to notify the plaintiff of the default and explore options to cure it. SLS claimed to have mailed multiple payoff statements and a notice of default to the plaintiff, but he asserted he never received these communications. The plaintiff brought suit in Texas state court against HSBC, SLS, and Northsky, alleging violations of federal and Texas law and seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale. HSBC and SLS removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The district court granted partial summary judgment for HSBC and SLS, permitting the plaintiff to proceed on claims for violations of the VA Servicing Guidelines, quiet title, and trespass to try title. At a bench trial, HSBC and SLS presented circumstantial evidence of mailing, relying on business records and testimony from a corporate representative. The district court found this evidence sufficient and, applying the mailbox rule, presumed the plaintiff received the notices, concluding the defendants fulfilled their obligations under the VA Servicing Guidelines. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the appeal, applying a deferential standard to the district court’s factual findings. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court correctly applied the mailbox rule based on the evidence presented and that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of receipt. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Rummans v. HSBC Bank" on Justia Law

Ari Law v. Autonation.com

2026-08-26T13:32:05-08:00

A dispute arose from a vehicle lease agreement, leading Ari Law P.C. to file a Second Amended Complaint in May 2024 against BMW Financial Services NA, LLC and other defendants. Ari Law alleged breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, unfair business practices, fraud, and violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The San Mateo County Superior Court sustained BMW FS’s demurrer as to counts 2, 3, and 6 (warranty claims and Rosenthal Act claim) without leave to amend. Despite this, Ari Law included these dismissed counts in a Third Amended Complaint filed in September 2024. BMW FS repeatedly requested Ari Law to withdraw the improper claims, but Ari Law refused. BMW FS then served Ari Law with a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7, initially noticing a hearing for January 17, 2025, and later re-serving and filing the motion with a hearing date of March 18, 2025. The trial court sustained BMW FS’s demurrer to the same counts without leave to amend, and after considering the sanctions motion, imposed monetary sanctions of $29,055 against Ari Law and its counsel. Ari Law challenged the sanctions order, arguing that the notice of motion did not comply with statutory requirements due to differing hearing dates and insufficient time for the safe harbor period. The trial court rejected these procedural objections, finding that Ari Law had adequate notice and opportunity to address the motion, and denied Ari Law’s motion for reconsideration. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that the discrepancy in hearing dates between the served and filed notices did not invalidate the sanctions order, so long as the substance of the motion remained the same and the safe harbor provisions were strictly satisfied. The court affirmed the sanctions order, denied BMW FS’s request for sanctions on appeal, and awarded BMW FS costs. View "Ari Law v. Autonation.com" on Justia Law

All Does v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP

2026-08-26T07:30:58-08:00

A group of Colombian plaintiffs retained two attorneys under a contingency fee agreement to sue a multinational corporation for allegedly funding a paramilitary group that murdered their relatives. The agreement specified that the attorneys would receive one-third of any monetary award obtained before trial. A conflict soon arose between the attorneys after one joined a law firm, leading to disputes over representation and eventual court intervention. The case was consolidated into multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and over time, one attorney was discharged, with the court instructing the discharged attorney’s firm to file a charging lien to preserve its claim for fees and costs. After a settlement was reached that allocated $12.8 million to the plaintiffs and their counsel, the discharged firm moved to enforce its charging lien against the attorney’s share of the recovery. The district court referred the motion to a magistrate judge, who recommended nearly full payment to the firm. The district court adopted this recommendation, ordered the disputed funds to be held in the court registry pending appeal, and required that the funds not be disbursed until appellate review was exhausted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order enforcing the charging lien. The Eleventh Circuit held that such orders do not fall within the collateral-order doctrine because they do not resolve important issues separate from the merits and are not effectively unreviewable after final judgment. The court explained that attorneys’ contractual or equitable rights to payment do not implicate substantial public interests or values of a high order and can be adequately reviewed after final judgment. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "All Does v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP" on Justia Law