Contracts - Justia Case Law Summaries

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

West Series of Lockton Companies, LLC v. Kaufman

2026-08-26T07:30:15-08:00

Two individuals, both former members of several Missouri limited liability companies operating as a commercial insurance brokerage, entered into contracts with their company containing Missouri choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses, as well as customer non-solicitation covenants. The agreements required members to follow certain operating agreements, which included a provision allowing termination of membership interests upon 30 days’ notice. Despite this, both individuals resigned “effective immediately” and began working for a competitor. The company sued them in federal court in Missouri to enforce the contractual terms, while the former members filed lawsuits in California state court seeking to void the agreements. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment for the company on the enforceability of the Missouri forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses, finding the individuals breached the forum-selection clauses by suing in California. The court also found the customer non-solicitation covenants enforceable to the extent the company sought to enforce them. However, it granted summary judgment to the former members on claims that they breached the notice provision and related fiduciary duties, and on certain other contract and tort claims. The court awarded the company attorneys’ fees for the Missouri litigation but only nominal damages for the forum-selection clause breaches, declining to award fees incurred in the California actions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings on the enforceability of the choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses, as well as the customer non-solicitation covenants. It reversed the findings on the notice provision and fiduciary duty, holding these were breached, and directed entry of judgment for the company on those claims. The court vacated the nominal damages for the forum-selection clause breaches, instructing the district court to determine actual damages, and affirmed the attorneys’ fee awards to the company. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "West Series of Lockton Companies, LLC v. Kaufman" on Justia Law

Bourdeau Bros., Inc. v. St. Pierre

2026-08-26T07:23:34-08:00

An agricultural supply company sought to recover payment for cattle feed delivered to a dairy farm owned by a married couple, Melissa and Jason. The couple separated in 2018, agreeing that Melissa would no longer be responsible for farm expenses. Jason continued operating the farm, and the company allowed him to accumulate a large debt, expecting it to be paid after the couple’s divorce. Jason died before the divorce was finalized, after which Melissa ceased farming and sold the cattle. The company then sued Melissa to recover the outstanding feed account balance, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and detrimental reliance. The Vermont Superior Court, Franklin Unit, Civil Division, denied summary judgment for the company on its contract claim and granted partial summary judgment for Melissa, concluding that a novation had occurred, releasing Melissa from future obligations. At trial, the court treated the summary judgment ruling as the law of the case, and ultimately found that a novation occurred when the company and Jason agreed that he alone would pay the debt. The court also found that the company had waived its unjust enrichment claim by not contesting summary judgment on that count and, even had it not, the claim would be barred by unclean hands. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court found the trial court erred in concluding a novation had occurred, holding there was no evidence that the company intended to release Melissa from her contractual obligations. The Supreme Court held that, absent evidence of a mutual agreement to discharge Melissa’s obligations, the finding of novation was clearly erroneous. The Court also held that the company failed to preserve its arguments regarding unjust enrichment for appeal. The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings solely on the contract claim. View "Bourdeau Bros., Inc. v. St. Pierre" on Justia Law

West Development, LLC v. Town of W. Yellowstone

2026-08-25T14:38:29-08:00

A developer formed a company in 2006 and purchased property in the Town of West Yellowstone, Montana, intending to construct a 48-unit condominium project. The developer obtained a building permit and a “Will Serve Letter” from the Town, confirming that water, sewer, and storm drainage services would be provided. Construction began in 2007 but ceased in 2011, after which the building permit expired due to inactivity. The developer did not reapply for a permit, nor did it renew related approvals. In 2019, the Town adopted a resolution limiting new wastewater connections due to capacity concerns. In 2020, the developer attempted to sell the property, contingent on confirmation that service connections would still be honored. The Town responded that hookups would be permitted when capacity allowed but did not guarantee immediate service. The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denied the Town’s argument that the developer’s claims were time-barred under statutory limitations, ruling that the claims accrued only when the Town refused to guarantee connections in 2020. However, the District Court granted summary judgment for the Town on the merits, finding that the Will Serve Letter did not create an enforceable contract or vested right to service after years of inactivity and expired permits, and that the Town did not owe a special duty under the public duty doctrine. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s rulings. It held that the developer’s claims were timely but that, even assuming a contract existed, any right to service under the Will Serve Letter expired after a prolonged period of project inactivity and lapsed permits. The Court further held that the Town owed no special duty to the developer beyond its general obligations to the public, and summary judgment for the Town was appropriate. View "West Development, LLC v. Town of W. Yellowstone" on Justia Law

Buchheim v. Anaya

2026-08-25T13:02:45-08:00

Two families who had a long-standing personal and professional relationship worked together on real estate projects, with one family providing financing and the other managing remodeling. Their arrangement involved consolidating outstanding debts from two properties into a single promissory note secured by a deed of trust, with a substantial balloon payment due after one year. After disagreements arose about the scope of renovations for a particular property, their relationship deteriorated. Eventually, the financier purchased the property from the remodelers through an escrow process in which a portion of the purchase price was transferred back to the financier to satisfy the outstanding note. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted summary judgment in favor of the remodelers. The court found that the financier had been fully repaid through the escrow process and, as a result, suffered no damages. Additionally, the court held that a covenant not to sue, which had been negotiated as part of the property sale, barred the financier’s lawsuit. In a prior appeal regarding other parties, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a similar summary judgment due to the financier’s failure to cite record evidence. After the remaining cross-claims were dismissed, final judgment was entered for the remaining defendants. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case independently and affirmed the judgment. The court held that when undisputed evidence shows a debt has been repaid, subjective beliefs or unexplained testimony cannot create a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The court rejected the financier’s argument that the repayment was illusory or self-funded, as the objective record showed the debt was satisfied through the escrow transfer. The court also ruled that arguments regarding other forms of damages were forfeited because they were not raised in the trial court. Costs were awarded to the respondents. View "Buchheim v. Anaya" on Justia Law

Dillinger's LLC v. CR-GTD, LLC

2026-08-25T07:24:26-08:00

Cowboy Racing was formed in Wyoming with two members: EFTI, which held a 51% interest and was managed by William Edwards, and Dillinger’s, with a 49% interest, managed by Ryan Clement. The company’s operating agreement appointed Edwards and Clement as the initial managers and set out procedures for removing a manager, including both a for-cause provision and a mechanism for removal with the consent of a majority interest. In February 2025, EFTI, holding the majority interest, removed Clement as a manager citing his unauthorized expenditures. Despite his removal, Clement continued to act as though he had authority on behalf of Cowboy Racing. EFTI and Cowboy Racing then filed suit in the District Court of Laramie County, seeking a declaration that Clement could not act on behalf of the company, enforcement of a purchase right under the operating agreement, damages for breach of a letter of intent, and, relevant here, a preliminary injunction to prevent Clement from representing himself as a manager. Clement objected, arguing that the removal process was procedurally and substantively improper and conflicted with the operating agreement. The Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction, applying an abuse of discretion standard. The Court held that while the district court’s order was inartfully phrased as a final determination, it properly found that Cowboy Racing and EFTI were likely to succeed on their claim that Clement was lawfully removed under the operating agreement. The Court concluded the agreement was unambiguous and that EFTI, as the majority member, had the authority to remove Clement with express written consent. The preliminary injunction was affirmed, but the parties retain the right to present further evidence at trial on the merits. View "Dillinger's LLC v. CR-GTD, LLC" on Justia Law

Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc.

2026-08-24T10:32:10-08:00

Lakeshore Investments loaned over $1.7 million to NOW Solutions, Inc., secured by a promissory note and collateral agreement. When NOW Solutions defaulted, the parties amended the payment terms multiple times, eventually adding Vertical Computer Systems as a co-debtor. Despite these amendments, NOW Solutions fell behind on payments again, and Lakeshore filed a lawsuit for breach of contract. During litigation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement: NOW Solutions and its parent agreed to pay $450,000 in three installments, with a provision that failure to pay would entitle Lakeshore to a stipulated judgment of $1.5 million plus interest. After defendants defaulted on the final installment and failed to cure their default, Lakeshore requested entry of the $1.5 million judgment in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Defendants objected, arguing the amount was an unenforceable penalty. The Superior Court granted Lakeshore’s request without making specific findings beyond confirming the default. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, considered whether the $1.5 million stipulated judgment was a valid liquidated damages provision or an unenforceable penalty under Civil Code section 1671. The appellate court held that, because the $1.5 million amount bore no reasonable relationship to the damages that could have been anticipated from breach of the settlement, it constituted a penalty and was unenforceable. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to determine the actual damages suffered by Lakeshore as a result of the breach. The court awarded costs on appeal to the defendants. View "Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Parkin v. Avis Rent a Car System LLC

2026-08-24T09:00:04-08:00

Two foreign nationals from the United Kingdom rented vehicles from a car rental company during separate visits to the United States. Each used a third-party website to reserve vehicles and selected a package that included supplemental liability insurance. Upon arriving at the rental location, they signed rental forms and received a “rental jacket” that contained additional terms, including a statement that supplemental liability insurance would be provided via an excess automobile policy and an arbitration clause requiring most disputes to be resolved through arbitration. Later, the customers believed the company did not actually secure the promised insurance policy but intended to pay claims from its own funds. They filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and a violation of Florida’s consumer protection law. The District Court dismissed the fraud and statutory claims but allowed the contract claim to proceed. The defendants, Budget and its parent company, reserved their right to arbitrate and pursued discovery. After deposing the plaintiffs, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing the plaintiffs were aware of the arbitration clause when they received the rental jackets. The District Court denied the motion, finding that by litigating into discovery before moving to compel arbitration, the defendants had impliedly waived their right to arbitrate. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the waiver determination de novo. The Third Circuit held that the defendants did not impliedly waive their right to arbitrate. Because factual development was necessary to determine arbitrability under a prior circuit decision, the defendants’ conduct—reserving their arbitration right and moving to compel after depositions—was not inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for further proceedings on the motion to compel arbitration. View "Parkin v. Avis Rent a Car System LLC" on Justia Law

Air-Con, Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America, LLC

2026-08-21T13:30:03-08:00

A Puerto Rican distributor of HVAC products brought suit against a Miami-based manufacturer after their commercial relationship deteriorated. The distributor alleged that the manufacturer’s actions impaired its distribution rights under Puerto Rico’s Dealer’s Act (Law 75). After the distributor dismissed claims against certain non-diverse defendants, the manufacturer removed the case to federal court and asserted a counterclaim alleging the distributor owed over $235,000, as well as seeking a declaratory judgment that it had just cause to terminate the relationship. The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment to the manufacturer on the Law 75 claim, finding in its favor, and dismissed the manufacturer’s declaratory judgment counterclaim as unripe. The court denied summary judgment on the remaining damages counterclaim, finding material factual disputes and setting it for trial. The distributor sought entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b), which the court denied due to overlap between the claims. The distributor’s attempt to obtain appellate review via a petition under Rule 5 was also denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Subsequently, the manufacturer moved to voluntarily dismiss its remaining counterclaim without prejudice. The district court granted that motion, dismissing the counterclaim without prejudice and denying the distributor’s requests for dismissal with prejudice or for attorney fees and costs. The court then entered judgment dismissing the distributor’s claims with prejudice and the manufacturer’s counterclaim without prejudice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that it lacked appellate jurisdiction. The court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not produce a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when the dismissed claim could be revived in the same district court. Consequently, there was no final, appealable judgment, and the appeal was dismissed. View "Air-Con, Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America, LLC" on Justia Law

Ban v. Manheim

2026-08-21T09:34:22-08:00

The dispute centers on a business relationship involving ownership interests in Delaware Valley Regional Center, an EB-5 investment business. Joseph P. Manheim, holding a controlling interest through West 36th, Inc., eliminated Young Min Ban’s interests by unilaterally enacting a bylaw that allowed him to acquire Ban’s shares and redeem a partnership interest at self-determined values. Ban, who owned a minority share of West 36th, Inc. and a significant partnership interest in a related entity, sued for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and conversion, seeking damages equivalent to the fair value of his lost interests. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware found Manheim liable for breaching his duty of loyalty and awarded Ban $6,898,612 in damages, declining to consider Ban’s expert’s supplemental valuation as it was based on new inputs not timely disclosed. After trial, Ban moved for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, arguing for the first time that Manheim’s pre-litigation conduct warranted fee shifting under the bad-faith exception to the American Rule. The Court of Chancery granted this, treating fees as an element of damages due to Manheim’s conduct. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the lower court’s damages determination and its exclusion of the supplemental valuation, finding no abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court reversed the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. It held that a claim for attorneys’ fees as damages based on pre-litigation conduct must be raised before trial to provide adequate notice and an opportunity for the opposing party to defend. Because Ban did not raise this claim until after trial, the Supreme Court concluded it was waived. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling. View "Ban v. Manheim" on Justia Law

Democracy Partners, LLC v. O'Keefe

2026-08-21T08:32:48-08:00

Two investigative journalists, on assignment for a nonprofit media organization known for undercover reporting, infiltrated Democratic political consulting operations in 2016 using false identities. One reporter, posing as a philanthropist, met with a political consultant who then arranged for his colleague to hire the second reporter, also undercover, as an unpaid intern at the consultant's firm. The intern secretly recorded conversations and internal meetings over eight days, gaining access to nonpublic information. The media organization later published a video series alleging a conspiracy to incite violence at political events, using footage from both public interactions and the intern’s covert recordings. After the video’s release, major clients of the consulting firm terminated their contracts, citing concerns about scandal and the security breach. The consulting firm and its principals sued the journalists and their organizations in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and violations of federal and D.C. wiretapping laws. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on some claims but allowed others to proceed to trial. A jury found for the plaintiffs on the remaining claims and awarded damages for lost contracts and statutory damages for wiretapping. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the verdict. It held that the First Amendment barred damages based on losses caused by the publication’s protected speech, as the plaintiffs failed to prove that the unprotected conduct (the infiltration and covert recording) was the predominant cause of their damages. The court also held that the intern did not owe a fiduciary duty to the consulting firm under D.C. law, and therefore the wiretapping claims could not stand. The court reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and vacated the damages awards. View "Democracy Partners, LLC v. O'Keefe" on Justia Law

Mobile Investments, LLC v. Corporate Pharmacy Services, Inc.

2026-08-21T05:30:58-08:00

A property dispute arose when the estate of William King sold a property on Broad Street in Gadsden to Mobile Investments, LLC, in 2019. Corporate Pharmacy Services, Inc. (CPS), which had originally leased the property from King, claimed the lease included an option to purchase the property and that King’s estate improperly sold it without giving CPS the opportunity to exercise its right of first refusal. CPS sued Mobile Investments and The Broadway Group, LLC (TBG), alleging breach of the lease and seeking specific performance of the purchase option. After Mobile Investments and TBG repeatedly failed to comply with discovery requests and court orders, the Etowah Circuit Court entered a default judgment against them, ordering that CPS was entitled to purchase the property for $110,000. Mobile Investments and TBG first moved for relief from the default judgment, which was denied. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama, arguing they had not been properly informed by their counsel about discovery orders and their consequences. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Afterward, Mobile Investments and TBG filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion, later amended to add Rule 60(b)(6) grounds, seeking to set aside the judgment as void for lack of due process and to correct the property description. The trial court denied the motion in large part but scheduled a further hearing to resolve issues regarding the legal description of the property and the corresponding purchase price. Before the trial court could complete its proceedings on these unresolved issues, Mobile Investments and TBG appealed again to the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that because the trial court had not yet issued a final judgment—leaving substantive issues pending—it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. View "Mobile Investments, LLC v. Corporate Pharmacy Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Adsync Technologies, Inc. v. FAA

2026-08-20T10:33:07-08:00

Two companies competed for a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hardware contract related to air traffic control tower simulators. Adacel, having already secured a related software contract, knew that its own software would be used, giving it an informational advantage over Adsync, which was unaware of the software selection. Adacel’s bid was lower, and it initially won the hardware contract. Adsync protested, and the FAA’s Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition (ODRA) found Adacel’s advantage unfair. The FAA allowed Adsync to revise its bid with knowledge of the software, but restricted changes to those attributable to the new information and barred Adacel from revising its bid. After Adsync revised its proposal with significant price reductions, the FAA’s contracting team accepted most, but rejected about $734,000 in reductions pertaining to basic hardware, finding Adsync had failed to justify their connection to the software selection. As a result, Adacel’s bid remained lower, and it again won the contract. Adsync filed a second protest with ODRA, challenging the FAA’s rejection of some price reductions, the technical evaluation, and the best value determination. ODRA concluded that the FAA had a rational basis for its decisions and recommended denial of the protest. The FAA adopted ODRA’s recommendations. Adsync sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court held that the FAA did not violate its Acquisition Management System Guidance’s “price realism” provision, as it was not applicable to the remedial rebid context. The court further found substantial evidence supported the FAA’s rejection of certain price reductions and concluded that ODRA did not abuse its discretion in denying bid and proposal costs. Accordingly, the petition was denied. View "Adsync Technologies, Inc. v. FAA" on Justia Law

CAN-AM FUEL DISTRIBUTION, LLC V. SINCLAIR OIL, LLC

2026-08-20T08:31:30-08:00

A company operating a gas station in Washington entered into a series of agreements with a petroleum refiner and a logistics company. The agreements allowed the company to rebrand its station and market motor fuel under the refiner’s trademarks, even though the refiner did not supply the actual fuel. Instead, the logistics company served as an intermediary, and fuel was sourced from a third party. Later, the refiner and logistics company claimed the agreements were terminated, demanding the removal of the trademarks. The gas station operator refused, alleging that the termination violated the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), which regulates the termination and nonrenewal of petroleum marketing franchises. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the gas station operator’s PMPA claim. The court held that no PMPA franchise existed because the refiner did not supply the fuel to either the operator or the logistics company. The court reasoned that the statute required the refiner to be the supplier of the fuel for a franchise relationship to exist under the PMPA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. It held that the PMPA does not require the refiner to supply the actual fuel; rather, a franchise exists if there is a contract authorizing the use of the refiner’s trademark in connection with the sale of motor fuel. The court determined that the operator plausibly alleged franchise relationships with both the refiner and the logistics company, based on the mutual obligations in the agreements and the statutory definitions. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the PMPA claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "CAN-AM FUEL DISTRIBUTION, LLC V. SINCLAIR OIL, LLC" on Justia Law

Western Mortgage v. Walker

2026-08-20T08:12:05-08:00

A dispute arose over a 2,300-acre land development project in Washington County, Utah. The owners, Keith and Lorin Walker, planned a large residential community but faced foreclosure following the 2008 financial crisis. To save the project, they entered into a contract with Western Mortgage & Realty Company, which agreed to clear the land’s title and transfer ownership to a jointly controlled entity. Western failed to form the promised entity, leading to litigation. Western sued to quiet title, and the Walkers counterclaimed for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, among other claims. The Fifth District Court held a bench trial, finding in favor of the Walkers on their breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims. The court imposed a constructive trust, awarded the Walkers monetary damages, and granted attorney fees as consequential damages for the breach of fiduciary duty. The Walkers were instructed to seek attorney fees through a post-trial motion under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 73. After trial, the parties signed a stipulation waiving appeals on prior rulings but reserving the right to appeal any future rulings regarding attorney fees. In their post-trial motion, the Walkers, for the first time, disclosed a hybrid contingency-hourly fee arrangement with their counsel. The district court accepted this late disclosure, finding that it was either for good cause or harmless, and awarded the Walkers consequential damages based on the contingency fee, increasing their monetary award and interest in the trust. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah reversed the district court’s award of the contingency fee as consequential damages. The court held that attorney fees sought as consequential damages require disclosure under Rule 26, and their foreseeability and amount must be proven at trial. The Walkers’ failure to disclose and prove these elements was neither harmless nor for good cause. The Supreme Court instructed the district court to modify the damages award accordingly. View "Western Mortgage v. Walker" on Justia Law

Burleigh Cty v. Comstock Construction

2026-08-20T06:22:04-08:00

Two North Dakota counties jointly owned a detention facility and entered into a contract with a construction company to build it, hiring an architectural firm to specify and approve materials, including paints. In early 2017, during a walk-through, a county official noticed that paint on a bunk bed was peeling off easily, exposing bare metal with no visible primer. He documented the issue and notified both the architect and the painting subcontractor, who suggested the paint had not cured. Despite this, the paint problems persisted and were reported as a widespread issue months later; the counties continued to express concerns and sought to identify responsibility. The counties later sued the architect and other parties for breach of contract, alleging failure to ensure proper paint specifications. Claims against all other defendants were resolved by settlement, leaving the architect as the sole defendant. The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, granted summary judgment in favor of the architect, concluding that the six-year statute of limitations applied. The court found that the counties were on notice of a potential claim as of the February 2017 walk-through and that their action, filed in 2023, was untimely. The court also declined to consider equitable estoppel, as it was not raised before the trial court. On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the summary judgment de novo. The court agreed that the discovery rule triggered the statute of limitations in February 2017, when the counties became aware of facts that would place a reasonable person on notice of a potential claim. The court held that the counties’ claim was time-barred and affirmed the district court’s dismissal, declining to address arguments inadequately raised or preserved for appeal. View "Burleigh Cty v. Comstock Construction" on Justia Law

KING-CRETE DRILLING, INC. V. WHITLEY COUNTY FISCAL COURT

2026-08-20T06:10:03-08:00

In the aftermath of severe flooding in Whitley County, Kentucky, the county government sought bids for infrastructure repair projects, specifying that bids should use unit pricing for materials. King-Crete Drilling, Inc. submitted bids and was awarded contracts for two projects. During the bidding and performance phase, King-Crete asserted that a county official directed it to rely on FEMA specifications for material quantities but assured payment for actual quantities required to complete the projects, even if these exceeded the bid amounts. After completing the work, King-Crete invoiced the county for the unit prices multiplied by the actual quantities used. The county, however, paid only the original bid amounts. King-Crete sued the county and the official, claiming breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and seeking to enforce oral modifications to the contract. The Whitley Circuit Court denied the county’s motion to dismiss, allowing the claims to proceed. The county and the official appealed. The Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled that the county was immune from suit due to sovereign immunity and dismissed all claims against it. The Court of Appeals also found the official could not be personally liable but remanded for further proceedings to clarify his immunity status. On discretionary review, the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that, while the Kentucky Model Procurement Code does not waive counties’ sovereign immunity, longstanding common law allows enforcement of express written contracts against counties. The Court reversed in part, holding that King-Crete’s claim to enforce the express written contract may proceed. However, the Court affirmed dismissal of claims based on oral contract modifications and unjust enrichment, as sovereign immunity bars such relief. The case was remanded to the circuit court to interpret the written contract’s terms and determine whether the county met its contractual obligations. View "KING-CRETE DRILLING, INC. V. WHITLEY COUNTY FISCAL COURT" on Justia Law

Merchants Bank of Indiana v. Craik

2026-08-19T12:30:57-08:00

Merchants Bank of Indiana lent substantial amounts to two entities for the purchase of assisted living facilities in Arkansas and Tennessee. The loans were secured by mortgages on the properties as well as personal guaranties executed by three individuals. When the borrowers defaulted on the loans, Merchants initiated federal lawsuits against the guarantors to collect the outstanding debts and, after dismissing the borrowers from those suits, later began foreclosure actions on the mortgaged properties in state courts. Receivers were appointed for the properties, but Merchants had not recovered the loan amounts. After Merchants moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the guarantors argued that Indiana’s “One Action” statute (Indiana Code § 32-30-10-10) barred simultaneous suits on the guaranties and foreclosures. The district court, acting on its own, granted summary judgment to the guarantors, finding that the statute applied to guaranties and rendered the waivers in the guaranty contracts unenforceable as contrary to Indiana public policy. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the scope of Indiana’s One Action statute and the enforceability of waivers in this context were unsettled under Indiana law. Recognizing the ambiguity and the lack of controlling precedent, the Seventh Circuit certified two questions to the Indiana Supreme Court: whether the statute prohibits a lender from foreclosing while simultaneously suing on guaranties in separate proceedings, and, if so, whether such protections may be waived by guarantors. The Seventh Circuit stayed further proceedings in the case pending the Indiana Supreme Court’s response. View "Merchants Bank of Indiana v. Craik" on Justia Law

Nicholls v. Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc.

2026-08-19T12:30:03-08:00

Several employees of Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc. sued their employer, seeking prevailing wages under the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) for certain repair and replacement work they performed pursuant to a contract between Veolia and the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission. That contract was authorized by a 1997 Massachusetts Special Act, which provided that work falling within "the construction and design of improvements" remained governed by the PWA. The disputed work occurred during the contract’s second stage, which involved ongoing operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of wastewater facilities. After both sides moved for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled for Veolia. The court concluded that the employees’ work did not fall under "construction and design of improvements" as used in the Special Act and, relying on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts’s (SJC) decision in Metcalf v. BSC Group, Inc., determined that the structure of the procurement scheme made the PWA inapplicable to the service contract as a whole. The employees appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, reviewing the case, certified two questions regarding Massachusetts law to the SJC. The SJC clarified that "construction and design of improvements" in the Special Act is broader than the PWA’s definition of “construction” but does not include ordinary repairs or maintenance. The SJC also held that the Special Act was not incompatible with the PWA and that Metcalf was not controlling. Based on the SJC’s answers, the First Circuit held that the district court’s summary judgment for Veolia could not stand, reversed the order, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine which, if any, of the employees’ tasks fell within the statutory phrase. View "Nicholls v. Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc." on Justia Law

McNain Holdings v. Wilderness Preserve

2026-08-18T14:12:01-08:00

Two couples, who were friends and interested in purchasing vacation property to accommodate their families, entered into identical purchase agreements in 2015 with the owner of a luxury resort in Montana. The agreements granted each couple a fractional interest in a three-bedroom villa, with the understanding that they would be transferred to a four-bedroom villa once one was constructed. Until that time, they were to be exempt from maintenance fees and allowed use of a four-bedroom cabin. Both couples paid the purchase price and received warranty deeds for the three-bedroom villas but never received the promised upgrade, as no four-bedroom villas were ever constructed. In 2023, the resort owner demanded maintenance fees and cancelled their reservations when the couples refused to pay, citing the unfulfilled contractual obligation. After the resort was sold to a new owner, the couples received no further communication or access. The couples sued for breach of contract and under the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), seeking damages and attorney fees. The Montana Nineteenth Judicial District Court granted summary judgment in their favor on the breach of contract claim, finding the agreements valid and breached by the owner for failing to provide the upgrade and improperly charging fees. The court denied summary judgment on the MCPA claim, which went to a jury along with the issue of contract damages. The jury awarded $250,000 in contract damages to each couple but found for the defendant on the MCPA claim. The court subsequently awarded all attorney fees and costs to the couples, finding these were inseparable from the contract claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed. It held that substantial credible evidence supported the jury’s damages award, including damages for loss of use after the property changed hands, and that the verdict was consistent with the instructions and supported by the evidence. The court also upheld the award of full attorney fees, finding the claims and related work inseparable, and remanded for a determination of fees and costs incurred on appeal. View "McNain Holdings v. Wilderness Preserve" on Justia Law

Village of Schaumburg v Permasteelisa North America

2026-08-18T12:30:47-08:00

The Village of Schaumburg owns a hotel and convention center that it alleges has defective exterior walls. In February 2022, it initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against several parties for fraud, breach of warranty, and products liability. In November 2022, the Village added Permasteelisa North America, a subcontractor, as a defendant. About eight months later, the Village sought to compel arbitration of its dispute with Permasteelisa, even though it had not previously requested arbitration in its complaint or before filing suit, and the arbitration clause was contained in a contract between Permasteelisa and the general contractor, not the Village directly. The District Court concluded that by filing a lawsuit and then delaying its request for arbitration, the Village presumptively waived any right to arbitrate it might have had. The Village argued that the lawsuit was filed to avoid the statute of limitations expiring, but the District Court responded that the Village should have requested arbitration at the outset or, at the latest, soon after Permasteelisa’s motion to dismiss was filed. The court found that the combination of filing suit and substantial delay amounted to waiver of any right to arbitrate and denied the Village’s motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the District Court did not err in concluding that the Village waived any right to arbitrate by acting inconsistently with that right through both initiating litigation and delaying the arbitration request. The Seventh Circuit also rejected the argument that a contractual anti-waiver clause could override federal procedural rules governing litigation conduct. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "Village of Schaumburg v Permasteelisa North America" on Justia Law

Quadvest v. San Jacinto River Auth

2026-08-18T09:30:38-08:00

A conservation district in Montgomery County, Texas, required large water users to reduce groundwater usage by 30%. To facilitate compliance, the San Jacinto River Authority (the “River Authority”), a political subdivision of Texas, created a joint groundwater reduction plan and entered into contracts with about 80 utilities, including Quadvest, L.P. (“Quadvest”). These contracts required participants to pay certain fees and, at the River Authority’s discretion, to connect to surface water provided by the River Authority. The fees aimed to equalize costs between groundwater and surface water users and to finance new infrastructure. Quadvest, a family-owned utility, initially operated only in the retail market and later expanded into wholesale water supply. After the relevant groundwater regulations were rescinded due to political changes and litigation, Quadvest challenged the lawfulness of its contract with the River Authority in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. It alleged that the contract constituted an unlawful restraint of trade under the Sherman Act, specifically as per se illegal horizontal price-fixing and market allocation. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the River Authority, concluding that Quadvest failed to prove its claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the challenged contract did not constitute a per se illegal horizontal restraint because the parties were not competitors at the time of contracting, and the agreement was vertical in nature. The court further determined that the contract did not fix prices or allocate markets in a manner prohibited by the Sherman Act. Under the rule of reason, Quadvest also failed to define the relevant market and thus could not demonstrate anticompetitive effects. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Quadvest v. San Jacinto River Auth" on Justia Law

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

2026-08-17T08:01:24-08:00

Water districts in California that received water from the federal Central Valley Project sought to convert their water service contracts into repayment contracts under the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act. This conversion allowed the districts to prepay construction costs in exchange for contracts that would last indefinitely, rather than for a set term. The Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the Central Valley Project, converted 67 contracts upon request from water districts, modifying only the payment terms and leaving other contractual rights unchanged. The Bureau did not conduct contract-specific environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or consult with wildlife agencies under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) before making these conversions. The Center for Biological Diversity and other plaintiffs challenged the Bureau’s actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. They argued that the Bureau was required to undertake NEPA review and ESA consultation before converting each contract, because the conversions would impact the environment and protected species in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. The district court compelled joinder of the affected water districts and granted summary judgment to the Bureau and the water districts. The court found that the WIIN Act imposed a mandatory duty on the Bureau to convert contracts upon request, and that the Bureau lacked discretion to alter terms for environmental protection, so NEPA and the ESA did not apply. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that section 4011(a) of the WIIN Act requires the Bureau to convert water service contracts upon request, permitting only changes related to payment structure and not to other contractual rights. Because the conversions are nondiscretionary, the Bureau is not required to conduct NEPA review or ESA consultation. The Ninth Circuit also found that this interpretation does not violate the WIIN Act’s savings clauses. View "CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION" on Justia Law

NexPoint v. Highland

2026-08-14T09:30:48-08:00

Highland Capital Management, L.P. and HCRE Partners (now NexPoint Real Estate Partners) collaborated on a large real estate project in 2018, forming SE Multifamily Holdings, LLC to acquire substantial residential assets. HCRE, controlled by James Dondero, and Highland structured their membership interests in the LLC through an amended agreement after another investor joined. When Highland later entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, HCRE, led by Dondero, filed a proof of claim asserting entitlement to distributions and seeking contract reformation regarding membership allocation. Both Dondero and another officer, Matt McGraner, admitted during litigation that their claim lacked merit, and evidence showed the claim was filed without investigation, likely to protect SE Multifamily’s assets from Highland’s creditors. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas oversaw the proceedings, including extensive discovery and a motion to disqualify HCRE’s counsel, which the court granted. As discovery continued, HCRE sought to withdraw its claim two days before critical depositions, but the bankruptcy court denied the motion, finding withdrawal would prejudice Highland. After a bench trial, the bankruptcy court ruled against HCRE, rejecting its contract reformation theory and disallowing its proof of claim. Subsequently, the court imposed sanctions on HCRE, finding bad faith in both the filing and litigation of the claim. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed the imposition of sanctions. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The Fifth Circuit held that clear and convincing evidence supported the bankruptcy court’s finding that HCRE acted in bad faith by filing a baseless claim and litigating it in bad faith, including frivolously opposing the disqualification of counsel and seeking to withdraw the claim to avoid discovery while preserving it for future litigation. The court also held the sanctions were causally related to HCRE’s conduct and not an abuse of discretion. View "NexPoint v. Highland" on Justia Law

AECOM Technical Services v. Flatiron | AECOM

2026-08-14T08:32:14-08:00

Two infrastructure companies formed a joint venture to bid on a Colorado highway express lane project, relying on engineering designs from a subsidiary of one partner. After winning the contract, the joint venture entered a subcontract with the engineering firm that incorporated many of their earlier terms but added a liability cap. During the project, disputes arose over the design work, resulting in multiple redesigns and delays. The engineering firm submitted change orders for additional work, but the joint venture either failed to process them according to contract procedures or “shelved” them as litigation began. The engineering firm sued the joint venture in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The joint venture counterclaimed for breach of both the subcontract and the original teaming agreement, and later added a negligent misrepresentation claim. The district court dismissed the negligent misrepresentation counterclaim under the economic-loss rule and later granted summary judgment to the engineering firm on the teaming agreement counterclaim, holding that the subcontract superseded the earlier agreement and imposed a liability cap. The joint venture sought to add fraud counterclaims more than a year after the final pretrial order, but the district court denied this as untimely and prejudicial. The court also rejected the joint venture’s attempt to concede liability and assume the plaintiff’s role at trial, and denied its Rule 50 motions. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that the district court did not err in denying the joint venture’s various motions, including its attempt to add new counterclaims, to instruct the jury on an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, or to enter judgment against itself. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the engineering firm on all claims and counterclaims. View "AECOM Technical Services v. Flatiron | AECOM" on Justia Law

Turpin v. Charlotte Latin Schools, Inc

2026-08-14T07:40:23-08:00

A married couple enrolled their children at a private school that, until the 2020–2021 academic year, offered a traditional curriculum. Following the events of summer 2020, the school shifted its curriculum to emphasize issues of race and gender identity. The parents became concerned after learning their sixth-grade child was exposed to controversial teachings and age-inappropriate materials. They joined a group of parents to express their concerns to the school’s leadership. After the parents met with school officials, the school abruptly expelled their children and accused the parents of making racist remarks, which the parents deny. The parents filed suit in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, alleging breach of contract, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, defamation, and other claims. The trial court, Judge Lisa C. Bell presiding, dismissed all claims except for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parents voluntarily dismissed that remaining claim to appeal. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of all other claims. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case to determine whether the parents’ complaint satisfied the state’s “notice pleading” standard for surviving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court held that the parents adequately alleged claims for breach of contract, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices based on their fraud allegations, and defamation. The court found that their breach of contract claim was viable because they alleged the school expelled their children under a false pretext, in violation of the contract. The fraud and defamation claims also survived due to sufficient factual allegations. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and remanded for further proceedings on these claims, but affirmed or declined to review the dismissal of other claims. View "Turpin v. Charlotte Latin Schools, Inc" on Justia Law

SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. v. DOD

2026-08-14T06:32:42-08:00

A Chinese drone manufacturer and its subsidiary challenged their designation by the U.S. Secretary of Defense as a “Chinese military company” under Section 1260H of the National Defense Authorization Act. The designation, which is published annually, restricts the company from contracting with certain government agencies and can damage its business reputation. DJI was added to the list in 2022 and again in 2024 and 2025 without prior notice. DJI petitioned for removal, which was denied, and subsequently received a report explaining the designation, though portions of the rationale were redacted. DJI filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. The company argued that it was denied due process, that there was insufficient evidence for the designation, that the agency failed to explain disparate treatment compared to other companies, and that the Secretary’s finding that DJI “contributes” to the Chinese defense industrial base was unsupported. The district court granted summary judgment against DJI, relying solely on the unclassified administrative record and declining to review the classified materials. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s rejection of DJI’s due process, evidentiary, and disparate treatment claims, holding that DJI failed to show deprivation of a protected liberty or property interest, and that sufficient evidence supported the finding that DJI received government assistance. However, the appellate court reversed the district court’s conclusion regarding DJI’s “contribution” to the Chinese defense industrial base, finding that the lower court improperly relied on post hoc agency arguments and failed to review the classified record. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. v. DOD" on Justia Law

Ex parte State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

2026-08-14T05:32:38-08:00

A couple alleged that their home in Union Springs suffered significant roof damage from a storm in January 2024. They had a homeowners’ insurance policy with an insurer and submitted a repair estimate of $9,112.02 to the company, which responded with a significantly lower settlement offer. The couple sued the insurer in the Bullock Circuit Court, claiming breach of contract and bad faith, and alleged a systematic practice by the insurer of underpaying roof claims. During discovery, the couple requested documents relating to the handling of roof claims. The insurer objected, citing concerns over the breadth of the requests and the confidential nature of certain documents. After both sides submitted competing motions for protective orders, the circuit court entered an order that allowed some confidential materials produced by the insurer to be used not only in the couple’s case but also in other cases handled by their counsel involving similar claims against the insurer. The order also permitted sharing information with governmental agencies under certain conditions. The insurer petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus, seeking to vacate the protective order and require a more restrictive, non-sharing version. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that there is no per se prohibition against sharing provisions in protective orders, provided there are adequate safeguards. The court concluded that the circuit court did not exceed its discretion in allowing sharing with government entities. However, it required the protective order to be modified to (1) specify the exact cases in which sharing is permitted, (2) require all recipients to agree in writing to be bound by the order and submit to the circuit court’s jurisdiction, and (3) clarify obligations for returning or destroying confidential materials at the conclusion of each case. The petition for mandamus was granted in part and denied in part, and the writ was issued accordingly. View "Ex parte State Farm Fire and Casualty Company" on Justia Law

Huber v. Currie

2026-08-13T11:44:18-08:00

The case concerns a dispute stemming from a loan agreement between Christopher Huber and Janet Currie. In 2019, Currie sought to purchase a hemp business and borrowed $185,000 from Huber, agreeing to repay $370,000 within approximately six months—an effective annual interest rate of 200%. The agreement also required Currie to provide a mortgage to secure the loan, which she did not do. After acquiring the business, Currie transferred the property to another entity she controlled without compensating Huber and failed to repay the loan. Huber sued Currie and related entities for breach of contract and fraudulent transfer, seeking the contract amount, interest, and an equitable lien on the property. The Vermont Superior Court, Addison Unit, Civil Division, granted partial summary judgment to Huber on the breach-of-contract claim because Currie did not contest the essential facts or substantiate her listed affirmative defenses, including usury, in her response to Huber’s motion. The court denied summary judgment on the fraudulent-transfer claim. Currie later moved to vacate the summary-judgment order, arguing that the contract was usurious under Vermont law. The court denied this motion, finding Currie had waived the usury defense by failing to raise it at the summary-judgment stage. The court awarded Huber $185,000 with interest at the legal rate and imposed an equitable lien, but did not rule on Currie’s third-party claims. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment for Huber, holding that Currie procedurally waived the usury defense by not properly raising it in response to the summary-judgment motion, and that the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing to revisit the issue. The Court remanded the case for consideration of Currie’s outstanding third-party claims. View "Huber v. Currie" on Justia Law

Ferguson v Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.

2026-08-13T09:31:38-08:00

A group of former shareholders of a reinsurance provider’s parent company acquired the provider’s rights to seek recourse against third parties for losses stemming from a failed reinsurance program. The losses occurred after the provider’s agent advised participation in a structurally unsound London Market program, resulting in significant financial harm. The shareholders, now plaintiffs, alleged that an insurance brokerage firm failed to properly notify the agent’s professional liability insurers of claims arising from these events, as required under agreements between the broker, the agent, and the insurers. After unsuccessful attempts to recover from the provider’s agent and its bankrupt parent company, the plaintiffs notified the agent’s insurers, who denied coverage due to untimely notice. The plaintiffs then filed suit against the brokerage firm in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, asserting claims for professional negligence and breach of contract. The suit was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court dismissed the negligence claim and granted summary judgment to the brokerage firm on the contract claim, finding the provider was not a third-party beneficiary to the relevant agreements and the broker owed no duty to the provider. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the provider was not a third-party beneficiary of the agreements between the broker and the agent, as the contracts did not expressly manifest an intent to benefit the provider. The court also held that the broker owed no professional duty to the provider to notify the agent’s insurers of claims. Finally, it concluded that the claims were time-barred under Illinois law. View "Ferguson v Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc." on Justia Law

UMB Bank v. Bristol-Myers

2026-08-13T06:30:04-08:00

Bristol-Myers acquired Celgene in 2019 and, as part of the transaction, issued contingent value rights (CVRs) to Celgene shareholders. These CVRs entitled holders to a one-time payment if certain FDA approvals were obtained by specified deadlines. The CVR Agreement established a trust to benefit CVR holders, with Equiniti Trust Company as the original trustee. After concerns that Equiniti was affiliated with Bristol-Myers, a majority of CVR beneficial owners sought to appoint UMB Bank as successor trustee. UMB, acting as trustee, later sued Bristol-Myers alleging breach of its diligent efforts obligations under the Agreement. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed UMB’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that UMB lacked Article III standing because it was not properly appointed as trustee under the strict terms of the CVR Agreement. The district court found UMB’s appointment invalid, and concluded this defect implicated standing and thus could not be cured. Bristol-Myers conditionally cross-appealed the district court’s denial of a prior motion to dismiss on alternative grounds. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that any defects in UMB’s appointment implicated its capacity to sue, not Article III standing. The court determined that injuries to the trust and its beneficiaries provided standing, and that UMB’s claims as trustee did not require UMB to have suffered personal injury. The Second Circuit further concluded that, even if UMB’s appointment did not strictly comply with the Agreement, the conduct of both Bristol-Myers and Equiniti, along with the approval of a majority of beneficial owners, constituted waiver or ratification, precluding Bristol-Myers from challenging UMB’s capacity to act. The appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment, dismissed the cross-appeal, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "UMB Bank v. Bristol-Myers" on Justia Law

LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Underwood Towers Ltd. Partnership

2026-08-13T04:04:14-08:00

Underwood Towers Limited Partnership leased land from the city of Hartford to build apartment buildings and financed the project with a mortgage loan. After defaulting, Underwood executed additional notes and a second mortgage in favor of HUD. Following further defaults and transfers, LPP Mortgage Inc. acquired the second mortgage and notes but did not receive the original of one note—only a lost note affidavit. LPP Mortgage then brought a foreclosure action, seeking not only to foreclose the mortgage but also damages against Underwood and its management agent, CDC Management Corporation. The Superior Court, Complex Litigation Docket, denied Underwood and CDC’s motion to dismiss, ruling that LPP Mortgage had standing to foreclose as the owner of the debt, even without possession of the lost note, relying on New England Savings Bank v. Bedford Realty Corp. Judgment of strict foreclosure and damages was entered. On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that LPP Mortgage had standing to pursue foreclosure as the debt owner, despite not being able to enforce the note under the UCC. The case was remanded for setting new law days. After remand, Underwood and CDC again moved to dismiss, arguing that the Connecticut Supreme Court’s later decision in Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope changed the law, requiring possession of the note to foreclose. The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case after transfer from the Appellate Court. The Court held that res judicata barred Underwood and CDC from relitigating LPP Mortgage’s standing, as the issue had already been fully litigated and decided by the Appellate Court. The Supreme Court further held that Bank of New York Mellon v. Tope did not overrule Bedford Realty Corp., and thus the law had not changed. The trial court’s denial of the motions to dismiss was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Underwood Towers Ltd. Partnership" on Justia Law

Cosel v. Wendt

2026-08-11T13:30:03-08:00

A woman and her husband, after marrying, received a parcel of real estate from her parents, which they held as tenants by the entirety in Massachusetts. They planned and undertook substantial renovations, initially funded by gifts from the husband’s parents. When those funds ran out, the husband’s parents provided over $1.5 million more, which was later documented as a loan in a promissory note signed only by the husband, not the wife. The couple’s marriage deteriorated, leading to divorce proceedings. During the divorce, the husband’s parents obtained a default judgment against the husband (but not the wife) for the loan and secured a writ of execution against his interest in the property, which was recorded. After the divorce, the family court awarded the property solely to the wife, free from any claim by the husband, and clarified that it could not adjudicate the parents’ rights under the promissory note. Subsequently, the husband’s parents transferred their judgment to a family trust, which noticed a sheriff’s sale of the husband’s purported interest in the property. The wife sued in state court to stop the sale, the case was removed to federal court, and both sides sought summary judgment. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to the wife, holding that the divorce and property distribution extinguished the creditor’s interest and that, even if the loan were valid, the wife was not jointly liable because the funds were not spent on “necessaries” under Massachusetts law. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court’s prediction of state law concerning the effect of divorce on a creditor’s interest and remanded for factual findings on the validity of the loan as to the wife. The court also found that neither preclusion nor the state’s domestic relations exception barred the wife’s challenge, and that factual disputes remained as to whether the loan was spent on necessaries. The court affirmed, reversed, and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Cosel v. Wendt" on Justia Law

Trimble v. Entrata, Inc.

2026-08-11T10:30:42-08:00

A software company operated an online payment portal used by residents, including the plaintiff, to pay rent for Maryland apartments. Each time the plaintiff paid rent through the portal, she was charged a convenience fee. To complete a transaction, users were required to check a box agreeing to the portal’s hyperlinked terms and conditions, which included an arbitration provision, a clause allowing unilateral changes to the agreement, and a notice provision stating that notices would be posted on the portal. The plaintiff, on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, filed a class action, alleging that the company unlawfully acted as an unlicensed collection agency by collecting these fees. After the action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the company moved to compel arbitration based on the terms and conditions. The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under Maryland law because the company’s ability to unilaterally change the terms without advance notice rendered its promise to arbitrate illusory. The district court agreed, finding that the contract was a browsewrap agreement and that the modification and notice clauses allowed the company to change terms at will without meaningful notice or an opportunity for users to opt out before changes became binding. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that, under Maryland law, the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration because the company’s promise to arbitrate was illusory. The court reasoned that the change-in-terms clause gave the company unfettered discretion to modify the agreement at any time, without advance notice, thus failing to bind the company meaningfully. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Trimble v. Entrata, Inc." on Justia Law

HEALTHCARE ALLY MANAGEMENT OF CALIFORNIA, LLC V. WSP USA, INC.

2026-08-11T08:01:43-08:00

A dispute arose concerning the payment rate for a surgical procedure performed at an out-of-network facility. The patient receiving the surgery was covered by an ERISA-governed health plan provided by the employer and administered by an insurance company. Prior to the surgery, the facility contacted the plan administrator to verify coverage and was told that the plan would reimburse at the usual, customary, and reasonable (“UCR”) rate, not the lower Medicare rate. Relying on this representation, the facility performed the surgery. However, the plan later paid only at the Medicare rate, far less than the full billed amount. The facility’s successor in interest, having obtained the rights to the claim, sought to recover the unpaid balance. The action was first brought in California state court, then removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff asserted both ERISA and state law claims. The district court dismissed the ERISA claim for lack of derivative standing, as the plaintiff was not properly assigned the right to sue under ERISA. The court also dismissed the state law claims for negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel, holding that these claims were preempted by ERISA because they related to an ERISA-covered plan. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the promissory estoppel claim, holding that, under circuit precedent, such claims are preempted by ERISA. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the negligent misrepresentation claim. The appellate court held that ERISA does not preempt a negligent misrepresentation claim by a provider’s successor in interest when the claim arises from representations made by the plan administrator during a pre-service verification call. The court concluded that such a claim does not sufficiently “relate to” an ERISA plan to trigger preemption, as it is not based on an ERISA-regulated relationship or enforceable under ERISA’s civil enforcement mechanism. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the negligent misrepresentation claim. View "HEALTHCARE ALLY MANAGEMENT OF CALIFORNIA, LLC V. WSP USA, INC." on Justia Law

Sorum v. Sikorski

2026-08-11T07:18:29-08:00

Paul Sorum and Jeff Martinson, as co-owners of Clean Crude, entered into written lease agreements with Big Sky Limited of Wyoming for the rental of several aboveground oil storage tanks. After Clean Crude failed to make required lease payments and left the tanks in poor condition, Big Sky sued Clean Crude, Sorum, and Martinson, seeking damages for breach of contract and related claims. Martinson ultimately settled, and Mike Sikorski, having acquired Big Sky’s interest, was substituted as plaintiff. During a bench trial, Sikorski testified that Sorum and Martinson personally guaranteed payment of the leases if Clean Crude could not pay, but Sorum was not allowed to testify about the alleged oral guarantee. The District Court of Campbell County found Clean Crude liable for breach of the lease agreements and found Sorum personally liable for damages based on the oral guarantee. The court initially awarded damages, but Sorum appealed, and the Wyoming Supreme Court, in Sorum v. Sikorski, 2024 WY 124, reversed in part and remanded solely to allow Sorum to testify regarding the alleged oral guarantee. On remand, the district court restricted evidence to the issue of the oral guarantee, allowed Sorum to testify, and reaffirmed its finding that Sorum had made and breached a personal oral guarantee, awarding the same damages. The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s actions on remand, holding that the district court properly limited the scope of evidence to the oral guarantee, consistent with the mandate rule and law of the case doctrine. The Supreme Court further held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Sorum made an enforceable oral guarantee to pay the leases with personal funds and breached that guarantee. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment in its entirety. View "Sorum v. Sikorski" on Justia Law

Becerra-Paez v. Syracuse University

2026-08-11T06:30:07-08:00

In this case, the plaintiff, a student at Syracuse University, alleged that the university breached an implied-in-fact contract or was unjustly enriched by refusing to provide a partial refund of tuition and fees after transitioning to online-only education due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The student’s claims centered on the argument that he and other students paid for an in-person educational experience and associated campus services, which were not provided during the remote learning period. The university maintained that it was not obligated to provide refunds under the circumstances. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the complaint. The district court applied the law of the case from a previous, similar lawsuit (Poston v. Syracuse University) and, alternatively, held that the complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court reasoned that the plaintiff had not alleged a sufficiently specific promise by the university to provide exclusively in-person instruction or services in exchange for the tuition and fees at issue. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted a split between federal and New York state courts regarding what must be pleaded to state a claim for breach of contract in the context of COVID-19-related transitions to remote learning. Given this unresolved issue of New York law, the Second Circuit certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: whether a student seeking a tuition refund must allege a specific promise of exclusively in-person learning, or whether alleging a generally implied promise of in-person education and access to campus facilities is sufficient. The Second Circuit reserved decision on all claims pending the New York Court of Appeals’ response. View "Becerra-Paez v. Syracuse University" on Justia Law

Nasey v. Fell Holdings LLC

2026-08-10T10:10:42-08:00

The appellant operated businesses from two mixed-use properties in San Francisco for decades, but lost ownership of these properties through foreclosure in 2020. After foreclosure, he entered an agreement with the new owners allowing him to remain in possession, pay rent, and repurchase the properties for $10.5 million, with escrow deadlines extended multiple times via addenda. Ultimately, the final deadline to close escrow was set for September 29, 2022. The appellant failed to meet this deadline and then filed suit seeking declaratory relief, arguing that certain statutory disclosure requirements were conditions precedent to his performance, that he had the right to conduct a further environmental assessment required by his lenders, and that the sellers’ refusal to allow such testing excused his nonperformance. In the Superior Court of San Francisco County, the defendants repeatedly moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted these motions, initially with leave to amend, and ultimately dismissed the case without leave to amend. The operative complaint alleged four causes of action for declaratory relief, based on alleged failures by defendants to provide required disclosures and to permit environmental testing. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that, even assuming statutory disclosures under Civil Code section 1102 were required, the parties’ contract and subsequent addenda made clear that such disclosures were not a condition precedent to the appellant’s obligation to perform. The court also found no allegation that the sellers had knowledge of hazardous substance releases requiring disclosure under Health and Safety Code section 25359.7. Further, the court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to suspend closing or to conduct additional environmental testing beyond the contract’s terms, and that the sellers’ refusal did not constitute breach. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. View "Nasey v. Fell Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

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

2026-08-10T08:02:51-08:00

A student enrolled in a respiratory therapy program at a public university in Georgia was disciplined following an incident during his clinical externship, where he was found responsible for endangering the health or safety of a patient. As a result, the university assigned him a failing grade in his clinical class. The student, who has attention deficit disorder, anxiety, and depression, alleged that university personnel were aware of his conditions. He claimed that prior to the disciplinary hearing, he was denied access to evidence and that the hearing procedures did not comply with the university’s written policies. After exhausting internal university appeals, the student filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court against the Board of Regents and several employees, asserting breach of contract and disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, among other claims. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The district court dismissed the breach of contract claim on the basis of state sovereign immunity, finding no enforceable written contract that would waive immunity. The court also dismissed the disability discrimination claims for failure to state a claim, holding that the complaint did not plausibly allege adverse action taken because of the student’s disability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that neither the admission letter nor the student handbook, alone or together, constituted a written contract sufficient to waive Georgia’s sovereign immunity, as neither document set forth all essential terms, especially as to consideration. The court further held that the student’s complaint failed to plausibly allege that the university’s actions were taken because of his disabilities. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the student’s breach of contract and disability discrimination claims. View "Waller v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia" on Justia Law

Gligorov v. Nation of Brunei

2026-08-07T06:32:11-08:00

A Slovenian businessman, who had served as a consultant to the government of Brunei, entered into an agreement to investigate corruption within the Bruneian government. He alleges that after delivering his findings—which implicated high-level officials in theft, money laundering, and terrorism financing—his contractual partners refused to pay him and conspired, along with three corporate entities, to ruin his reputation and business. The suit claims violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various common law contract and tort theories. The corporate defendants are Audley Property Management Company Limited, Seven Properties AG, and The Dorchester Group, LLC. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims against the corporate defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding neither general nor specific jurisdiction was established. It also denied the plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding that his allegations were speculative and that the proposed discovery would not show purposeful direction of activities toward the United States. Partial final judgment was entered in favor of the corporate defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and the denial of jurisdictional discovery for abuse of discretion. The appellate court assumed, based on the parties’ agreement and post-Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, that personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment required reasonableness and a meaningful nexus to the United States. The court found the plaintiff had not established any concrete interest in litigating in the U.S., nor had he identified any meaningful U.S. interest in the dispute. The burden on the foreign corporate defendants would be unjustified. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal and denial of jurisdictional discovery. View "Gligorov v. Nation of Brunei" on Justia Law