Contracts - Justia Case Law Summaries

Needham v. Needham

2026-07-08T08:03:36-08:00

A married couple, Shane and Janet Needham, divorced after a long marriage during which Mr. Needham co-founded a closely held corporation, Alturas Analytics, Inc., holding 50% of its shares. The parties stipulated to a divorce decree, but the magistrate court reserved jurisdiction to determine the division of their community shares in Alturas. The corporation’s Buy-Sell Agreement, which restricted share transfers, had been signed by both spouses. Following Mr. Needham’s termination from Alturas and ongoing disputes among shareholders, Ms. Needham sought an in-kind division of the shares, while Mr. Needham argued for a monetary award reflecting the shares’ value at the date of divorce. After a two-day trial, the Magistrate Court awarded Ms. Needham 50% of Mr. Needham’s Alturas shares, compelling him to execute a waiver to facilitate the transfer. Mr. Needham appealed to the District Court of the Second Judicial District, arguing the division was inequitable, diminished his share value, and violated precedent requiring equal value in community property division. The district court affirmed the magistrate court’s disposition and awarded attorney fees against Mr. Needham, concluding the in-kind share award was permissible and the court had discretion regarding the valuation date. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho found that the magistrate court abused its discretion by awarding shares in kind and by compelling Mr. Needham to execute the waiver without considering whether that action required him to act in a corporate fiduciary capacity, which the court lacked authority to compel. The Supreme Court also clarified that the proper valuation date for community property is the date of dissolution, not a later date, and reversed the district court’s award of attorney fees. The Court reversed the district court’s affirmance and remanded with instructions for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Needham v. Needham" on Justia Law

Boldt Company v Black & Veatch Construction, Inc.

2026-07-08T07:30:46-08:00

Black & Veatch Construction, Inc. contracted The Boldt Company as a subcontractor for the assembly of a windfarm in Illinois. The project quickly encountered delays due to late delivery of turbine parts, unsuitable site conditions, and issues with equipment, for which Boldt provided several written notices to Black & Veatch. Despite these notices, Black & Veatch issued multiple default warnings and ultimately terminated Boldt for cause, taking over the remaining work. Boldt sued, claiming wrongful termination and seeking payment for completed work, while Black & Veatch counterclaimed that Boldt breached by failing to perform on time. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Black & Veatch, ruling that Boldt defaulted by failing to perform on schedule and that Black & Veatch properly terminated the subcontract. At trial, the jury was tasked only with determining damages and awarded Black & Veatch nominal damages of $1. Both parties filed post-trial motions, which the district court denied. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the jury’s nominal damages verdict, finding no reversible error in the district court’s evidentiary rulings or jury instructions. The appellate court also affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to Boldt’s claims for payment for completed work and for Black & Veatch’s alleged failure to provide adequate construction works. However, the Seventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on the wrongful termination claim, finding the subcontract ambiguous about whether Boldt was responsible for delays absent specific notice and that material factual disputes remained. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the wrongful termination claim. View "Boldt Company v Black & Veatch Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Cross v. Albright

2026-07-08T07:19:50-08:00

Two neighboring landowners, who are related by marriage, became involved in multiple property disputes, including disagreements over joint ownership and access to ditches and land. To resolve these disputes, one party filed two complaints in the District Court of Fremont County: one seeking an easement for ditch access and another seeking partition of jointly owned land. The parties also had related petitions pending before the Board of Control. During litigation, they participated in mediation and signed an email outlining terms of a purported global settlement agreement, which included provisions for access to ditches, maintenance rights, restrictions on visible storage, and the drafting of a formal settlement by one party’s attorney. After mediation, as the parties attempted to formalize the agreement, new disagreements arose regarding how to implement the access and storage restriction provisions. Each party filed a motion to enforce their interpretation of the settlement; one sought a recordable easement and restrictive covenant, while the other argued those terms exceeded the agreement. The District Court of Fremont County held a hearing to consider the motions, reviewed the parties’ filings and affidavits, and ultimately found that the agreement lacked essential terms, particularly regarding implementation of ditch access and the visual storage restriction. The court determined there was no meeting of the minds and denied both motions to enforce, as well as a request for sanctions. The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the appeal. It held that the district court did not violate due process, as the issue of contract formation was properly considered and the parties had notice and opportunity to argue their positions. The Supreme Court agreed with the district court’s finding that no enforceable settlement agreement existed due to lack of mutual assent on material terms. It further held that Cross was not entitled to attorney’s fees, as there was no enforceable contract providing for such fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Cross v. Albright" on Justia Law

Reagan Marine Construction, LLC v. Costa

2026-07-07T08:17:35-08:00

A general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work on a marina expansion project in Bristol, Rhode Island. The subcontract specified that time was critical and required timely written notice of delays, as well as an indemnification clause. After the parties negotiated an expanded scope of work and the general contractor paid a deposit, the subcontractor failed to meet the estimated completion schedule and did not provide required delay notices. As a result, the town threatened to terminate the general contract. The general contractor then terminated the subcontract and hired a replacement. The contractor sued the subcontractor and its CEO in Providence County Superior Court, alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and conversion, and sought damages and attorney’s fees. The defendants answered and asserted affirmative defenses. After repeated failures to comply with discovery orders and to retain new counsel following their attorney’s withdrawal, the Superior Court issued conditional orders of default, giving the defendants multiple opportunities to comply. When they did not, the court entered a default judgment for the contractor, including damages, costs, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees. The CEO appeared at some hearings but not others, raising concerns about notice and service, which were addressed by the trial justice, who instructed him to file a Rule 60 motion to vacate the default if he wished to contest notice. No such motion was filed. Both sides subsequently filed motions with the Rhode Island Supreme Court relating to remand and post-judgment relief. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed whether the trial justice abused discretion in entering the default judgment. It held that the defendants’ failure to file a Rule 60 motion or properly raise notice issues in the lower court precluded appellate review of those issues. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the entry of default and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The imposition of a cash bond as a condition for remand did not violate due process. View "Reagan Marine Construction, LLC v. Costa" on Justia Law

Chishti v. Spottiswoode

2026-07-07T07:32:04-08:00

Zia Chishti, formerly CEO of a technology company, and his wife brought claims against Tatiana Spottiswoode, her attorneys, and related parties. Chishti and Spottiswoode had a prior romantic relationship, and Spottiswoode was later employed by Chishti’s company under an arbitration agreement. In 2017, Spottiswoode accused Chishti of harassment and assault, leading to confidential arbitration, which resulted in an arbitral award in her favor. Years later, Spottiswoode was subpoenaed to testify before Congress about forced arbitration in sexual assault cases, where she recounted her experiences involving Chishti. After her testimony, Spottiswoode and her attorney made public statements to the media and on social media regarding the matter. Chishti alleged these statements were defamatory and part of a campaign to damage his reputation, causing him to resign from his executive roles. His wife also claimed loss of consortium. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court found that Spottiswoode’s statements before Congress were protected by legislative privilege under District of Columbia law, and that the post-hearing public statements were protected opinions or shielded by the fair reporting privilege and the First Amendment. The court also concluded that the other tort claims were duplicative of defamation, that the conspiracy and loss of consortium claims failed without a viable underlying tort, and that the breach of contract claims were barred by privilege or insufficiently pleaded. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. The appellate court held that witness statements to Congress and related communications were absolutely privileged under District of Columbia law. It further held that post-hearing statements were protected as opinion or by fair reporting, and that related tort and contract claims failed for lack of an actionable underlying claim. The dismissal with prejudice was affirmed. View "Chishti v. Spottiswoode" on Justia Law

20100 Eastex v. Saltgrass

2026-07-06T15:30:32-08:00

A dispute arose over a property contract concerning two adjacent restaurant parcels in Humble, Texas, formerly owned by affiliates of Landry’s, Inc. After Landry’s sold one parcel, a Reciprocal Easement Agreement was created to regulate construction and modifications on each parcel. Years later, 20100 Eastex, L.L.C. purchased the parcel previously occupied by Joe’s Crab Shack and leased it to BJ’s Brewery, which planned to demolish the existing building and construct a new one. BJ’s requested Saltgrass’s consent for the project, but Saltgrass denied approval, leading Eastex to claim that consent was deemed granted under the contract due to alleged procedural defects. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment to Saltgrass, finding that the Agreement required Eastex to obtain Saltgrass’s express written consent before demolition or new construction, and Eastex failed to properly request approval. Eastex appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially found Section 3.3 of the Agreement ambiguous and remanded for further factfinding. On remand, the district court considered extrinsic evidence, particularly the uncontested testimony of the drafter, and again granted summary judgment for Saltgrass. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that undisputed extrinsic evidence clarified Section 3.3, establishing that Saltgrass’s consent was required for any demolition or new construction. The court affirmed summary judgment for Saltgrass, dismissed Eastex’s appeal regarding attorney fees for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded for determination of Saltgrass’s appellate attorney fees. The main holdings were: Saltgrass’s interpretation of the contract was correct; summary judgment was proper due to lack of genuine factual dispute; and Saltgrass is entitled to appellate attorney fees. View "20100 Eastex v. Saltgrass" on Justia Law

Compeer Financial, ACA v. Corp. Amer. Lending, Inc.

2026-07-06T07:30:57-08:00

Compeer, a group of federally chartered farm credit associations, entered into a master participation agreement with Corporate America Lending, Inc. (CAL), under which Compeer paid CAL $58 million in exchange for the right to receive all payments due on a set of agricultural loans CAL had originated to Famoso Hills Ranch in California. Under the agreement, CAL was to promptly remit any payments or proceeds received on these loans to Compeer. When Famoso refinanced its loans and paid off the balance to CAL, CAL failed to notify Compeer or transfer the payoff proceeds as required and instead concealed receipt of the funds and withheld them as a negotiation tactic, eventually claiming a right to offset based on alleged damages suffered. Arbitration proceedings commenced, resulting in an award in favor of Compeer, finding it was unconditionally entitled to the payoff proceeds and that CAL had no legal basis to withhold them. The arbitration panel found for Compeer on its claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Compeer moved in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to confirm the award and appoint a receiver to secure the funds. The district court confirmed the arbitration award, finding it final and enforceable, and appointed a receiver due to CAL’s repeated noncompliance and attempts to dissipate the funds. CAL appealed, arguing the award was nonfinal, violated public policy, and the receivership was improper due to a forum-selection clause and lack of necessity. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court held that the arbitration award was final and confirmable, the public policy exception to vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act did not require setting aside the award given the alternative equitable bases for Compeer’s recovery, and the district court acted within its discretion in appointing a receiver due to CAL’s conduct and the inadequacy of alternative remedies. View "Compeer Financial, ACA v. Corp. Amer. Lending, Inc." on Justia Law

Alta v. General Electric

2026-07-01T09:30:53-08:00

Alta Power, L.L.C. sought to build peaker plants in Texas using refurbished turbines, ultimately contracting with WattStock, which collaborated with General Electric International, Inc. (GE) as a subcontractor. Alta and WattStock’s Master Agreement included a mutual waiver of consequential damages for claims “arising out of or connected in any way to” the agreement, covering both parties and their subcontractors. The turbine arrangement failed in 2020, leading to litigation among Alta, WattStock, and later GE. WattStock filed for bankruptcy and removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Alta sought consequential damages from GE, alleging tortious conduct, fraudulent inducement, and arguing the waiver did not apply to intentional torts. The district court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment to GE, holding that GE, as WattStock’s subcontractor, was an intended third-party beneficiary of the consequential-damages waiver. The court found the waiver enforceable under Texas law, even in the face of alleged fraudulent inducement, referencing Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. SPEP Aircraft Holdings, LLC, 572 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2019), and concluded that the waiver applied to all causes of action, including intentional torts. The district court dismissed all claims by Alta with prejudice, except for GE’s breach of contract claim, which was also dismissed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that GE was an intended third-party beneficiary eligible to enforce the waiver, that alleged fraudulent inducement did not render the waiver unenforceable under Texas law, and that the waiver applied to intentional tort claims. The court affirmed the dismissal of Alta’s claims against GE. View "Alta v. General Electric" on Justia Law

Menge v. GEICO General Insurance Company

2026-07-01T08:23:02-08:00

A carpenter who managed his own construction business was involved in a multi-vehicle accident in September 2013, while driving a car owned by another individual. The accident, caused by another driver, resulted in significant injuries and financial losses for the plaintiff, who claimed over $75,000 in medical expenses and more than $250,000 in lost income. The plaintiff had a business insurance policy with Main Street America Assurance Company (MSAA) during the relevant period. The driver and owner of the vehicle that struck the plaintiff were insured by GEICO General Insurance Company. Previously, the plaintiff sued the at-fault driver and owner (the Mathieus) in Kent County Superior Court and later settled that case. In the present suit, the plaintiff brought claims against both GEICO and MSAA for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and statutory bad faith refusal to settle. Both defendants moved to sever the bad faith and implied covenant claims and to stay discovery on those claims, which the Superior Court granted. The court also denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel additional document production from GEICO, pending resolution of summary judgment motions. Ultimately, the Superior Court granted summary judgment for both defendants. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s judgments. The Court held that MSAA’s business insurance policy expressly excluded coverage for injuries arising from automobile use, so the plaintiff’s contract and related claims failed as a matter of law. As to GEICO, the Court found that Rhode Island law prohibits direct actions against an insurer under these circumstances, and the plaintiff had no contractual or third-party rights under the GEICO policy. The Court also concluded that the issues related to severance and discovery were moot given the disposition of the contract claims. View "Menge v. GEICO General Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Patterson v. Cannon,

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

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

HAMP'S CONSTRUCTION LLC v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

2026-06-30T06:32:30-08:00

This case centers on a contractor’s claim for a Type I differing site condition relating to a flood control project in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The United States Army Corps of Engineers issued a solicitation for work on the Trapp Canal, which included boring logs and cross-sections of the canal but lacked specific information about the southwest bank. Hamp’s Construction LLC, after being awarded the contract, encountered unexpected bank failures in the southwest quadrant, resulting in unsafe conditions for land-based equipment and significant delays. Hamp’s Construction submitted a request for equitable adjustment and later a formal claim, asserting that the conditions encountered were materially different from those indicated in the contract documents. The contracting officer denied Hamp’s Construction’s request and subsequent claim, concluding there was insufficient proof of a differing site condition under the relevant Federal Acquisition Regulation clause. Hamp’s Construction appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. After a hearing, the Board found that although Hamp’s Construction had faced unforeseen difficulties and increased costs, the contract documents did not provide representations or indications about the subsurface conditions of the southwest bank. The Board emphasized the absence of boring logs or explicit information for the area where the failures occurred and denied the appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. The court held that, for a Type I differing site condition claim, the contract must affirmatively indicate conditions at the disputed site. The court determined that Hamp’s Construction could not reasonably rely on contract documents as indications for the southwest bank. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that Hamp’s Construction failed to establish a threshold element of a Type I differing site condition claim. View "HAMP'S CONSTRUCTION LLC v. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY" on Justia Law

Bridges v. Maxum Indemnity Company

2026-06-29T12:00:47-08:00

The case centers on a legal-malpractice insurance dispute arising from a failed medical-malpractice lawsuit. Lauren Bridges, acting as guardian for her minor daughter, initially filed suit in Alaska state court, alleging negligence by healthcare providers that resulted in her child’s disabilities. The case was dismissed when Bridges’s attorney, McKeen & Associates, failed to respond to summary judgment motions. Bridges subsequently brought a legal-malpractice claim against McKeen. At the relevant times, McKeen held legal-malpractice policies from Maxum Indemnity Company, StarStone Specialty Insurance Company, and Landmark American Insurance Company. All insurers declined to defend or indemnify McKeen. McKeen settled with Bridges, assigning her its rights under the policies. Bridges filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against all three insurers, seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for breach of contract. Maxum and Landmark moved to dismiss, and the district court granted their motions, finding the policies unambiguously excluded coverage. The district court also denied Bridges’s motion to amend her complaint to add bad-faith claims and, after Bridges and StarStone stipulated to dismissal, entered final judgment regarding Maxum and Landmark. Bridges appealed only the dismissal of her claims against Maxum and Landmark. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The court held that Maxum’s policy unambiguously required notification of potential malpractice claims during the policy period, which McKeen failed to do, precluding coverage. As to Landmark, the court found that the relevant “wrongful act” occurred before the retroactive date specified in the follow-form policy, excluding coverage. Bridges’s arguments regarding policy ambiguity and procedural fairness were rejected. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Bridges’s claims against both Maxum and Landmark. View "Bridges v. Maxum Indemnity Company" on Justia Law

IN RE: MMA LAW FIRM, PLLC

2026-06-29T08:36:37-08:00

After Hurricane Ida and other storms struck Louisiana, thousands of residents hired a Houston-based law firm under contingent fee contracts to pursue damage claims. Concerns emerged regarding the firm’s handling of these cases, leading to disciplinary and sanction actions by multiple courts. The Louisiana Supreme Court suspended the firm’s lead attorney’s license and stayed the firm’s cases in state courts. Subsequently, the firm withdrew or was discharged from virtually all remaining cases, and successor law firms resolved many claims. The firm filed for bankruptcy and asserted claims against successor law firms for attorney fees and costs from settlements, sparking disputes over the validity of its contracts in light of alleged misconduct. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, after a jury demand by a successor firm, withdrew the case from bankruptcy court and certified several questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The parties agreed that Louisiana substantive law governs the fee dispute. No factual findings were made about the misconduct allegations; the federal court and Louisiana Supreme Court addressed questions hypothetically. The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that a contingent fee contract formed as a result of unethical or illegal conduct by an attorney is absolutely null, and the attorney cannot recover fees or costs, even on a quasi-contract or quantum meruit basis. If an attorney engages in misconduct after a valid contract is formed, recovery of fees and costs is governed by the Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc. and O’Rourke v. Cairns framework, which allows for fee allocation based on the nature and gravity of the misconduct. The Court clarified that any person, including successor law firms, may assert absolute nullity of such contracts. The Court also declined to address procedural questions governed by federal law, such as whether a judge or jury should determine fee reductions in federal court. View "IN RE: MMA LAW FIRM, PLLC" on Justia Law

J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.

2026-06-29T04:09:06-08:00

A general contractor and a subcontractor entered into agreements for the construction and renovation of a facility. The subcontracts required disputes to be resolved by arbitration pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The subcontractor performed work and submitted invoices, but the general contractor, while timely rejecting the invoices and providing reasons, failed to include the good faith certification required by the Massachusetts prompt pay act. The contractor later paid the invoices after an arbitrator determined that the invoices were deemed approved due to the lack of timely certification. Subsequently, the contractor filed a counterclaim in arbitration seeking recoupment of those payments, arguing the invoices were not fair and reasonable. The subcontractor initially brought suit in the Massachusetts Superior Court, which was then compelled to arbitration per the contract. During arbitration, the arbitrator found that the contractor’s failure to timely certify its rejection of the invoices resulted in the invoices being deemed approved and ordered payment to the subcontractor. After payment, the arbitrator allowed the contractor’s counterclaim for recoupment. Following evidentiary proceedings, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the contractor, awarding partial recoupment. The subcontractor moved in the Superior Court to vacate this award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority. Relying on J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co., the Superior Court judge vacated the recoupment portion of the arbitration award, finding that the contractor had asserted defenses before paying the invoices, contrary to precedent. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the matter on direct appellate review. It held that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority because the award was not prohibited by law nor did it violate public policy. The court determined that the prompt pay act did not expressly prohibit recoupment in these circumstances and that the arbitrator’s actions were within the broad scope granted by the parties’ agreement and the arbitration rules. The judgment vacating the arbitration award was reversed and the matter remanded for confirmation of the arbitration award. View "J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co." on Justia Law

CARDEN v. MINTON, BASSETT, FLORES & CARSEY, P.C.

2026-06-26T06:22:16-08:00

A man was charged with several serious crimes and, at trial, was represented by attorneys from a law firm. His mother paid $300,000 in legal fees to the firm, based on representations made by his defense counsel about the services to be provided. The man was convicted of some charges and sentenced to prison. After an unsuccessful appeal, he and his mother sued the defense attorneys and their firm for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. They claimed that the attorneys had provided ineffective representation, failed to deliver on promises related to legal services and use of retainer funds, overcharged, failed to account for fees, and did not return unearned funds. The trial court dismissed all claims with prejudice under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, finding that the mother had no standing to sue because she was not a client, and that the Peeler doctrine barred all of the son’s claims because he had not been exonerated. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed, holding that the mother lacked standing and that the Peeler doctrine categorically barred all of the son’s claims, including those about excessive fees and failure to account. The Supreme Court of Texas clarified that Peeler v. Hughes & Luce bars a convicted criminal defendant from suing defense counsel for legal malpractice unless exonerated, but does not categorically bar contract or fraud claims unrelated to the conviction. The court held that the mother had standing to bring claims for her own direct economic losses, such as overpayment or failure to return unearned fees, but could not bring claims based on an attorney-client relationship. The court affirmed the dismissal of some claims, reversed as to others, and remanded to the court of appeals to consider additional issues, including whether some claims are really fractured malpractice claims and statute of limitations defenses. View "CARDEN v. MINTON, BASSETT, FLORES & CARSEY, P.C." on Justia Law

MAYA WALNUT LLC v. LY

2026-06-26T06:22:14-08:00

A grocery store operated by the petitioner leased space in a shopping center owned by the respondent. As the lease’s expiration approached, the store attempted to renew but was unsuccessful in reaching terms. During negotiations, a representative of the store became suspicious that a competitor, El Rancho, might be taking over the location after hearing about a possible “big surprise” involving El Rancho. Despite these suspicions, the store did not ask the landlord if other negotiations were underway. The landlord had in fact already agreed to lease the space to the competitor, but continued to negotiate with the store. When the store eventually discovered the new lease, it was unable to secure an alternate location and ultimately ceased operations. A jury found for the store on its fraud claims, and the trial court awarded substantial damages. The trial court also found for the landlord on a counterclaim for breach of contract. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the store, holding that the store’s reliance on the landlord’s representations was not justified as a matter of law because the existence of “red flags” negated justifiable reliance. The appellate court also held there was sufficient evidence to support the landlord’s counterclaim and remanded for a new judgment in the landlord’s favor. The Supreme Court of Texas granted review and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The Supreme Court held that the store’s reliance on the landlord’s representations was unjustifiable as a matter of law because, despite being a sophisticated party and having reason to be suspicious, the store failed to exercise reasonable diligence by not inquiring further when it suspected the property might not be available. The case was remanded for entry of judgment favoring the landlord on its counterclaim. View "MAYA WALNUT LLC v. LY" on Justia Law

FS Medical Supplies, LLC v. Tanner Pharma UK Limited

2026-06-25T10:30:26-08:00

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a limited liability company (LLC), FS Medical Supplies, entered into a contract to supply personal protective equipment and related products to TannerGAP, Inc. and Tanner Pharma UK Limited for distribution. FS Medical later discovered that the Tanner entities had contracted directly with one of its suppliers, prompting FS Medical to sue for breach of contract. Initially, FS Medical brought suit in California state court, but the defendants removed the case to federal court, where it was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. FS Medical then filed two actions in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3). FS Medical alleged that its members were citizens of Texas and California, and later acknowledged that one member was a citizen of China. The defendants included both U.S. citizens domiciled in North Carolina and a United Kingdom corporation. After limited discovery and amendment of the complaint, the district court, following a magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the presence of both domestic and foreign members in the plaintiff LLC destroyed diversity jurisdiction. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that, under § 1332(a)(3), complete diversity requires at least one U.S. citizen on each side of the action. Because FS Medical, as an LLC, had both domestic and foreign members at the time the complaints were filed, and because there were foreign defendants as well, the suit was not between “citizens of different States.” The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal and declined to grant relief under North Carolina’s savings statute, finding it lacked jurisdiction to do so. View "FS Medical Supplies, LLC v. Tanner Pharma UK Limited" on Justia Law

T&T Management, Inc. v. Choice Hotels Int'l

2026-06-25T07:31:00-08:00

T&T Management, Inc. operated a Country Inn & Suites hotel in Port Orange, Florida, under a 15-year license agreement that restricted the franchisor and others from operating hotels using the Country Inn & Suites marks within a defined area. In 2016, Radisson acquired the Country brand, and in 2022, Choice Hotels International purchased the brand from Radisson, assuming all obligations under the license agreement. Prior to acquiring the Country brand, Choice had licensed Sunshine Fund Port Orange, LLC to operate a WoodSpring Suites hotel within the protected area. T&T argued that this violated its license agreement, which it claimed protected it from all competing branded hotels operated or licensed by Choice in the area, and that the agreement’s definition of “Marks” included the WoodSpring mark. T&T initially brought suit in Florida, but after procedural rulings, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. After amending its complaint multiple times—including to reflect its sale of the Country-branded hotel—T&T alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference. The district court dismissed the third amended complaint for failure to state a claim and denied further leave to amend, finding no good cause for additional amendments. Before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, T&T contended that the district court erred in interpreting the contract, dismissing its claims, and denying further amendment. The Eighth Circuit held that, under Florida law, the agreement unambiguously permitted Choice to license non-Country-branded hotels, such as WoodSpring Suites, within the protected area. It affirmed the dismissal of T&T’s breach of contract and good faith claims, and also found the tortious interference claims insufficient because T&T failed to allege a breach or a non-speculative business expectancy. The appellate court also upheld the denial of further leave to amend due to lack of diligence. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "T&T Management, Inc. v. Choice Hotels Int'l" on Justia Law

Fischer v. Fischer-Olson

2026-06-25T07:17:57-08:00

A South Dakota general partnership, along with two individual partners, claimed they had made a series of loans exceeding $1 million to a corporation run by family members during a period when that corporation was engaged in costly litigation. The loans, according to the partnership, were informally made and not fully documented by promissory notes. After the corporation prevailed in its lawsuit and collected on a judgment, the partnership brought action to recover the loaned amounts. The defendants acknowledged receiving some funds but argued those had been repaid and contended that other claimed loan balances were fictitious. The Second Judicial Circuit Court in Lincoln County, South Dakota, oversaw the trial. The jury found in favor of the partnership, awarding $849,550 in damages. The court refused to instruct the jury on the statute of frauds, as requested by the defendants, and also declined their proposed instruction regarding the requirement to prove contract damages with reasonable certainty. After trial, the court denied the partnership’s request for prejudgment interest, citing the absence of a jury finding on the date of loss. The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It held that whether a writing satisfies the statute of frauds is a question of law, not fact, and that the emails and testimony presented were sufficient to satisfy the evidentiary requirements of the statute. Moreover, the court determined that judicial estoppel precluded the defendants from denying the indebtedness after previously acknowledging the same loans as part of their damages claim in earlier litigation. The court found no abuse of discretion in the damages instruction given and concluded that any error was non-prejudicial. Finally, it held that the plaintiffs had waived their right to prejudgment interest by not securing a jury finding on the date of loss. The judgment was affirmed. View "Fischer v. Fischer-Olson" on Justia Law

Veolia Water Techs. v. Antero Treatment LLC

2026-06-24T07:32:05-08:00

An energy company, seeking to address disposal challenges associated with wastewater from its hydraulic fracturing operations, engaged a water technology firm to design and construct a specialized treatment facility. The two sides entered into a series of agreements, culminating in a comprehensive contract for the facility’s construction. Before this final contract was executed, the water technology firm discovered that its design would not meet the energy consumption requirements critical to the energy company, but did not disclose this information. The firm also failed to reveal risks associated with a proposed design change that could affect the quality of the facility’s waste byproduct. Relying on the firm’s representations, the energy company signed the contract and later approved the design change. When the facility failed to meet contractual specifications—producing unusable waste and exceeding power limits—the energy company terminated the contract and sued for breach and fraud. The case was tried in the Denver District Court, which found that the water technology firm had fraudulently induced the energy company into signing the contract by concealing and failing to disclose material facts. The trial court held that the economic loss rule did not bar the fraud claim because the misconduct occurred prior to contract formation. The court awarded the energy company substantial damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, though it reasoned that the contracts were interrelated but found an independent tort duty still existed. The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed whether the economic loss rule barred the fraud claim. The Court held that the interrelated contracts doctrine does not apply when each contract is a stand-alone transaction and that the fraudulent conduct occurred before the governing contract was executed, inducing its formation. Therefore, the economic loss rule does not bar the fraud claim. The judgment was affirmed, and the case was remanded for a determination of reasonable attorney fees. View "Veolia Water Techs. v. Antero Treatment LLC" on Justia Law

Euphoric, LLC v. 4128 Broadway, LLC

2026-06-24T07:31:15-08:00

A business entity, through its principal, attempted to lease a commercial property in Kansas City, Missouri, from the property owner’s company. Both parties signed a lease document; however, the space for the “Commencement Date” was left blank. After negotiations soured—particularly following concerns from neighboring business owners about the potential use and branding of the property—the landlord refused to provide the tenant with keys or possession. The tenant did not provide a requested business plan and, shortly thereafter, the landlord leased the property to a different tenant. The would-be tenant had already paid a security deposit and incurred expenses in anticipation of opening its business. The tenant company filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, raising claims including breach of contract and racial discrimination. Several months later, after the property was re-leased, the tenant moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to compel the landlord to grant possession. At the hearing, the tenant conceded its request for injunctive relief was based solely on the breach of contract claim. The district court denied both the motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for reconsideration, finding the lease failed to satisfy Missouri’s statute of frauds because the commencement date—an essential term—was not included in the writing, and further finding the tenant failed to show irreparable harm. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of both motions. The Eighth Circuit held that, under Missouri law, a lease for longer than one year must include all essential terms, including the commencement date, in a signed writing, and that parol evidence cannot supply missing essential terms. Because the lease lacked the commencement date, the tenant failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration. View "Euphoric, LLC v. 4128 Broadway, LLC" on Justia Law

Fazel v. Pete Fowler Construction Services

2026-06-23T12:03:09-08:00

After her property experienced water intrusion, a homeowner sued her neighbor, whose property was the source of the problem. The neighbor, in defending the lawsuit, hired a construction consulting firm to inspect both properties and to create an expert report recommending repairs. The recommendations from this report formed the basis of a settlement between the homeowner and her neighbor, and repairs were performed accordingly. After the settlement and repairs, the water intrusion problem recurred, leading the homeowner to file a new lawsuit against the consulting firm, alleging that its recommendations were negligent and defective. In the Superior Court of Orange County, the consulting firm filed an anti-SLAPP motion, asserting that its actions were protected as statements made in the course of litigation. The trial court granted the motion concerning certain claims, but denied it for claims of negligence and breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary, reasoning these arose from conduct rather than protected statements. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal previously affirmed the trial court’s partial denial, finding that the remaining claims were not based on protected activity, and remanded for further proceedings on those claims. Upon remand, the consulting firm moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that the litigation privilege under California Civil Code section 47(b) barred the remaining claims. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the consulting firm. The court held that the litigation privilege applied because the firm’s formulation of repair recommendations was necessarily related to a communicative act (the expert report) prepared in the course of litigation, and thus barred the homeowner’s negligence and third-party beneficiary claims. The judgment in favor of the consulting firm was affirmed. View "Fazel v. Pete Fowler Construction Services" on Justia Law

Walton v Comfort Sys. USA (Syracuse), Inc.

2026-06-23T10:25:49-08:00

Technicians employed by the defendant performed installation, maintenance, inspection, testing, repair, and replacement of fire alarms, fire sprinklers, and security system equipment under contracts with public entities in New York. These contracts varied in their language regarding the payment of prevailing wages: some disclaimed any obligation to pay prevailing wages, some were silent, and a few expressly based payment on prevailing wage rates. All contracts included a clause providing that any action against the defendant had to be brought within one year of accrual. The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging, among other claims, that they were owed prevailing wages as third-party beneficiaries of the contracts. The District Court granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the breach of contract claims were time-barred by the contractual limitation period, that the contracts did not expressly entitle plaintiffs to prevailing wages, and, in the alternative, that plaintiffs were not covered by the prevailing wage law. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs were covered by Labor Law § 220 but certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the implicit inclusion of prevailing wage promises in public works contracts and the enforceability of shortened contractual limitation periods. The New York Court of Appeals held that the promise to pay prevailing wages is implicit in every public works contract covered by Labor Law § 220, regardless of whether that promise appears in the contract’s text. As a result, employees may bring third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims to enforce the prevailing wage requirement. The Court further held that contractual agreements to shorten the statute of limitations for such claims are unenforceable. The Court answered the first certified question in the affirmative and the second in the negative. View "Walton v Comfort Sys. USA (Syracuse), Inc." on Justia Law

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

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

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

Office of the Special Deputy Receiver v Hartford Fire Insurance Company

2026-06-18T12:30:47-08:00

The Office of the Special Deputy Receiver (OSD), an Illinois non-profit that manages receiverships for insolvent insurance companies, purchased a Financial Institution Bond from Hartford Fire Insurance Company. The bond included coverage for computer systems fraud and for electronic mail initiated transfer fraud, subject to certain exclusions. Hackers infiltrated OSD’s Chief Financial Officer’s email account via a spear phishing attack, impersonated the CFO, and sent fraudulent instructions to other OSD employees, resulting in unauthorized wire transfers and a loss of nearly $4 million. OSD filed claims with both Hartford and another insurer. Hartford denied coverage, asserting that an exclusion in the bond applied to the loss. OSD sued both insurers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking declaratory relief and alleging breach of contract. The district court granted Hartford’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the policy’s exclusion for losses resulting from fraudulent instructions sent to OSD by email applied, and denied the other insurer’s motion. OSD later voluntarily dismissed its claims against the second company, and judgment was entered. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the exclusion in Rider 17 of the Hartford bond unambiguously barred coverage for losses resulting from fraudulent email instructions sent to OSD—even if the sender was impersonating an internal employee—because the exclusion focused on the recipient, not the sender. The court found no ambiguity or conflict between the exclusion and other coverage provisions, and concluded that OSD’s losses fell outside the scope of coverage. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of OSD’s claims against Hartford. View "Office of the Special Deputy Receiver v Hartford Fire Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Freeport Plaza W., LLC

2026-06-18T08:11:53-08:00

The Incorporated Village of Freeport and Freeport Plaza West, LLC entered into a contract for the purchase and development of several parcels of land. The agreement stipulated that the closing would occur within 30 days after Freeport Plaza West received all required approvals. The Village alleged that Freeport Plaza West obtained the necessary approvals but failed to close on the property within the contractual timeframe. In response, Freeport Plaza West filed a counterclaim, alleging that the Village had effectively breached the contract by forcing a premature closing and refusing to accept necessary development documentation. Importantly, Freeport Plaza West did not file a notice of claim with the Village regarding its counterclaim. After the Village brought suit for breach of contract, Freeport Plaza West answered and asserted its counterclaim. The Village, in turn, raised as a defense that Freeport Plaza West had failed to satisfy all conditions precedent, including the statutory notice of claim requirement under CPLR 9802. Nearly a year and a half into the litigation and shortly before the scheduled trial, the Village moved to dismiss the counterclaim for the lack of a timely notice of claim. Supreme Court denied the motion, applying equitable estoppel against the Village due to its litigation conduct and finding no prejudice from the absence of formal notice. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the Village’s actions did not amount to misleading conduct warranting equitable estoppel and dismissed the counterclaim. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. The Court held that CPLR 9802’s notice of claim requirement applies strictly to contract actions against villages, including counterclaims, and that equitable estoppel against a municipality is only warranted in rare and unusual circumstances involving misconduct or misleading behavior, which were not present here. The failure to file a notice of claim barred Freeport Plaza West’s counterclaim. View "Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Freeport Plaza W., LLC" on Justia Law

ZHANG VS. ZHANG

2026-06-18T08:08:55-08:00

Two sisters became involved in a business dispute after one sister contributed $200,000 to the other for the purchase of four residential properties, expecting an equal share of profits from their rental or sale. The properties were titled solely in the recipient sister’s name, who later sold one and kept all proceeds. After attempts to secure her ownership interest failed, the contributing sister filed suit, asserting claims including breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking return of her investment and her share of profits. The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County initially entered a default against the defendant for failing to timely answer, but this was later set aside. As the trial approached, the defendant moved to exclude evidence of damages, arguing that the plaintiff had not provided an adequate computation of damages as required by NRCP 16.1. The court gave the plaintiff another chance to supplement her computation but she failed to comply in time. The court granted the motion to exclude all evidence of damages, then dismissed the complaint with prejudice, reasoning that without damages there was nothing left to litigate. The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. The court held that the district court correctly required a computation of damages because the claims sought tangible, quantifiable losses. However, it found that by granting the motion to exclude all damages evidence—which resulted in dismissal with prejudice—the district court imposed a case-terminating sanction. Under Nevada law, before issuing such a sanction, the court must analyze the factors set out in Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Building, Inc. Because the district court failed to conduct this analysis, the Supreme Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the required standards. View "ZHANG VS. ZHANG" on Justia Law

Construction Services, LLC v. RAM-Robertsdale Subdivision Partners, LLC

2026-06-18T05:30:34-08:00

A Mississippi construction company, operating under the name MCA Construction, Inc., entered into a contract with an Alabama property owner to perform site development work on a residential subdivision in Baldwin County. The contract was executed on February 11, 2021, and at that time, the company held an Alabama general contractor’s license with a “Building Construction” (BC) classification and an unlimited bid limit. Shortly before executing the contract, the city engineer raised questions regarding whether the BC classification was adequate for the planned utility work (such as water and sewer installation) and indicated that an additional “Municipal and Utility” (MU) classification might be required before such work began. MCA sought clarification from the state licensing board and subsequently obtained the MU classification in May 2021, before starting the utility work. The property owner, RAM-Robertsdale Subdivision Partners, LLC, along with related parties, later alleged that MCA had performed defective work and failed to pay subcontractors, and they brought suit in Baldwin Circuit Court. MCA filed counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud, asserting that it had not been fully paid for its work. The RAM parties moved for summary judgment, arguing that the contract was void because MCA was not properly licensed with the MU classification at the time the contract was executed. The Baldwin Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the RAM parties, holding that the contract was void because MCA was not “duly licensed” for all aspects of the work at the time of contracting. MCA appealed. The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the statutory and regulatory framework, noting that MCA had a valid BC license, acted in good faith, and obtained the MU classification before performing utility work. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that substantial compliance with the licensing statute was sufficient in these circumstances and that voiding the contract was not warranted. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Construction Services, LLC v. RAM-Robertsdale Subdivision Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

Bar at the Yard v. Friends Family

2026-06-18T05:08:38-08:00

A business operating a restaurant and bar near Memorial Stadium in Lincoln, Nebraska, leased its space from a landlord and claimed an exclusive right, under its lease, to sell alcohol in a specific outdoor area called the Common Area. Another business, which also operated a restaurant nearby, entered into agreements with the same landlord to sell alcohol from a space adjacent to the Common Area during Nebraska football home games. The new competitor sold alcohol through windows to customers standing in the Common Area, which the first business claimed violated its exclusive rights and harmed its sales. After learning of the competitor’s plans, the original bar sent a cease-and-desist letter, which was ignored. The bar then sued the competitor, alleging tortious interference with contract and with a business expectancy, seeking both damages and injunctive relief. Both sides submitted affidavits and evidence during discovery. The District Court for Lancaster County granted summary judgment in favor of the competitor, finding no evidence that the competitor’s actions went beyond valid competition or that it induced the landlord to breach the lease’s exclusivity provision. The court also struck certain portions of the plaintiff’s affidavit on evidentiary grounds. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that to prevail on claims for tortious interference with contract or business expectancy, a plaintiff must show intentional and unjustified interference beyond valid competition. The Court found no evidence that the competitor induced the landlord to breach the lease or engaged in improper means; mere knowledge that entering a new agreement would conflict with an existing contract was insufficient. The Court also agreed that the competitor’s conduct constituted valid competition, not actionable interference, and that any evidentiary rulings by the district court did not affect the outcome. View "Bar at the Yard v. Friends Family" on Justia Law

Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc. v PEM Consulting Group, LLC

2026-06-17T11:30:47-08:00

A small Indiana telecommunications engineering company entered into a master services agreement with a larger firm, Crown Castle, for potential construction work on cell tower sites. The agreement did not guarantee specific work or payment, and required approval of any subcontractors. Before the agreement was signed, the company began discussions with a group including the defendants about subcontracting the construction work because it lacked sufficient resources. Communications between the parties included a draft proposal but no finalized agreement. Nevertheless, work commenced, with the defendants providing crews, equipment, and funding, and the plaintiff company also supplying resources and covering expenses. Throughout the project, both parties disputed their responsibilities, and payments were made and later charged back. Eventually, the defendants contacted Crown Castle directly seeking payment, and the project ended with Crown Castle terminating its contract with the plaintiff due to poor work quality. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted summary judgment for all defendants. The court found there was no enforceable contract, as both sides admitted no final agreement was reached and essential terms were missing. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s claims for fraudulent inducement, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, finding no actionable reliance or advisory relationship. The claim for unjust enrichment failed because no benefit was conferred that would make retention unjust. The claim of tortious interference with business relations was dismissed because the defendants’ actions were justified by their legitimate interest in payment. The district court accordingly granted summary judgment to the insurers as well. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held there was no enforceable contract, no actionable fraud or misrepresentation, no unjust enrichment, and no tortious interference, and upheld summary judgment for all defendants. View "Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc. v PEM Consulting Group, LLC" on Justia Law

MARKHAM v. CAHAVA

2026-06-17T09:05:50-08:00

A developer owned all property in a residential community and petitioned a town to create a public improvement district to finance and construct infrastructure improvements, such as roads and water lines. The district’s board, composed of representatives of the developer, was authorized to levy assessments and issue bonds to fund construction. The developer and the district entered a development agreement requiring the developer to fund the improvements, and the district contracted with a construction company to perform the work. After most of the work was done, a payment dispute arose. The construction company obtained an arbitration award against the district but was not fully paid. The construction company then sued the developer and related entities for unjust enrichment, asserting that the developer received the benefit of infrastructure improvements without paying for them. The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted the developer’s motion to dismiss, concluding that, under Arizona law as interpreted in Wang Electric, Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, a plaintiff in an unjust enrichment claim must allege improper conduct by the property owner, and the construction company had not done so. The court also denied the construction company’s request to file an amended complaint. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the improper conduct requirement applied only in landlord-tenant-contractor cases, and allowed the construction company to amend its complaint. The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case to clarify when the improper conduct requirement applies to unjust enrichment claims. The court held that the requirement only applies when the owner is a landlord and the improvements are made at the tenant’s direction. It does not extend to situations where the owner directly arranges for improvements and pays no one for them. The court concluded that the construction company’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim for unjust enrichment against the developer. The court vacated the decision of the court of appeals, reversed the superior court’s dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings. View "MARKHAM v. CAHAVA" on Justia Law

Pinto v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n

2026-06-17T05:35:14-08:00

Samantha Pinto was involved in a car accident in December 2020, after which she claimed to have suffered various physical and cognitive injuries, including a concussion and related mental health issues. At the time, she was employed by United Services Automobile Association (USAA), her insurer, and asserted a claim for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits. Pinto alleged significant lost wages and benefits following her termination from USAA, which she attributed to her accident-related health issues. She received $500,000 from the other driver’s insurer but claimed that her damages exceeded that amount, seeking additional recovery from USAA under her UM policy. After USAA denied her UM claim, valuing it at less than what she had already recovered, Pinto filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the company. During discovery in the El Paso County District Court, USAA requested Pinto’s unredacted medical records, documents relating to a subsequent 2022 accident, and required her to submit to an independent medical examination (IME). Pinto objected, arguing that under Schultz v. GEICO Casualty Co., USAA should be limited to the evidence available at the time of its coverage decision. The district court distinguished Schultz, finding the requested information relevant and discoverable for the contract claim, and ordered Pinto to comply. The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the district court’s order under its original jurisdiction. It held that the rule from Schultz, which limits review to evidence available when the insurer made its decision, applies only to bad faith claims, not to breach of contract claims. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in compelling production of Pinto’s medical records and insurance documents, and in ordering her to undergo an IME. The order to show cause was discharged. View "Pinto v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n" on Justia Law

Wightman v. Ameritas Life Ins

2026-06-12T09:30:38-08:00

Mark and Courtney Wightman, who own a dental clinic in Louisiana, entered into an agreement with DenteMax, a preferred provider organization (PPO), allowing DenteMax to offer their services at discounted rates to its network subscribers in exchange for access to more patients. Unbeknownst to the Wightmans, DenteMax also entered into a separate agreement with Ameritas Life Insurance Corporation, which permitted Ameritas to pay DenteMax’s network providers, including the Wightmans, at the same discounted rates. The Wightmans only became aware of this arrangement when Ameritas reimbursed them at the discounted rates rather than their standard rates for services rendered to Ameritas-insured patients. The Wightmans filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Ameritas and DenteMax, alleging breach of contract, violations of Louisiana’s Preferred Provider Organization Act (PPO Act), and unjust enrichment. The district court initially dismissed several claims, partly on the ground that the suit was prescribed (time-barred). On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which held that PPO Act claims are contractual for prescriptive purposes, making the claims timely. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s prior dismissal. DenteMax settled, and on remand, the district court granted summary judgment to Ameritas, concluding that dental services are not “healthcare services” under the PPO Act, and that the Wightmans had abandoned their non-PPO Act claims. On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that dental services are “healthcare” under the PPO Act, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment on those claims. The court also found error in the district court’s treatment of the abandonment of non-PPO Act claims and remanded for further proceedings. The denial of leave to amend was affirmed. View "Wightman v. Ameritas Life Ins" on Justia Law

RIVER CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PRESTON HOLLOW CAPITAL, LLC

2026-06-12T06:16:24-08:00

A Texas city created a local government corporation to finance public improvements in a designated district. The corporation borrowed $17.4 million from a Wisconsin bond issuer, which funded the construction of improvements, with the city agreeing to purchase those improvements over time using assessments levied within the district. The financing structure involved a promissory note and other contracts, but the corporation did not submit these documents to the Texas Attorney General for required examination and approval. After a change in city leadership and financial difficulties, the city and corporation sued the bondholder and related parties, arguing that the failure to obtain Attorney General approval rendered the transaction void and that the financing arrangement violated provisions of the Public Improvement District (PID) Act. The trial court (District Court of Williamson County) granted summary judgment for the bondholder and other defendants, holding that while submission to the Attorney General was required, failure to do so did not void the transaction. The court also determined that the PID Act had not been violated, and it rejected challenges to certain evidence and to the award of attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed, agreeing that the note and contracts were not void and that statutory requirements regarding bond issuance did not apply to the transaction. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that failing to submit the promissory note and supporting contracts to the Attorney General removes the statutory defense of incontestability but does not render the transaction void or unenforceable. It further held that the transaction did not violate the PID Act because the relevant restrictions applied only to bonds issued by the city or its corporation, which was not the case here. The court also found no reversible error regarding evidentiary rulings or the award of attorney’s fees. View "RIVER CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PRESTON HOLLOW CAPITAL, LLC" on Justia Law

5th and Walnut Parking, LLC v. City of Des Moines

2026-06-12T06:04:03-08:00

A group of developers and the City of Des Moines entered into a development agreement for a multi-use project in downtown Des Moines, including a parking garage, a residential tower, and a theater. The project was delayed multiple times due to issues with property title, design changes, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The developers notified the City of enforced delays under the agreement’s force majeure clause. Despite ongoing negotiations for contract amendments, the City issued default notices in June 2020 for failure to meet construction deadlines, which caused the project's lender to initiate foreclosure. The City later purchased the garage at foreclosure, extinguishing the developers’ debt but preventing them from completing the project and realizing contractual gains. The Iowa District Court for Polk County found the City breached the development agreement by issuing default notices without providing the required opportunity to cure and during an enforceable pandemic-related delay. The court awarded the developers over $4.3 million in damages for lost contractual benefits. The court also found the City liable for tortious interference with the developers’ loan agreement but denied other claims by both sides, including additional damages sought by the developers and fraud and unjust enrichment claims by the City. The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed the case for errors at law. It affirmed the district court’s finding that the City, not the developers, breached the agreement, upholding the damages award for breach of contract. However, it reversed the judgment against the City for tortious interference with contract, holding that a breach of contract alone, without additional improper conduct, does not support such a tort claim. The court affirmed the denial of all additional damages sought by the developers and rejected the City’s arguments for immunity, damages limitations, and reclaiming property titles. The developers’ cross-appeal was denied. View "5th and Walnut Parking, LLC v. City of Des Moines" on Justia Law

Vaughn Boyd v. Deadwood Tobacco Co.

2026-06-08T07:31:04-08:00

Two businesses and their principals were involved in the sale of a cigar company. The sale was governed by a written agreement which expressly reserved three registered trademarks for the sellers, and did not mention other closely related marks. After the sale, the buyers’ company launched new cigar products and marketing campaigns referencing the history and reputation of the reserved marks and associated product lines. The sellers objected, claiming infringement of their reserved trademark interests and associated goodwill. When attempts to resolve the dispute failed, the sellers filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit. The first lawsuit was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That court did not address the merits of the trademark claims. Instead, it found that the claims arose out of the sales agreement, which contained a forum selection clause requiring venue in state court in Lawrence County, South Dakota. On that basis, the Florida district court dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds. Subsequently, the buyers initiated a related contract lawsuit in South Dakota state court. The sellers then filed the present lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, asserting only federal Lanham Act claims and omitting the sales agreement from their initial filings. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the federal trademark claims arose out of the sales agreement, because resolving them would require analyzing the parties’ contractual allocation of trademark rights and goodwill. The court further held that the forum selection clause in the agreement was valid, mandatory, and enforceable under South Dakota law and federal law, and that it required litigation to proceed in state court in Lawrence County, South Dakota. The Eighth Circuit also concluded that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over federal Lanham Act claims. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Vaughn Boyd v. Deadwood Tobacco Co." on Justia Law

Deque Systems Inc. v. Browserstack, Inc.

2026-06-05T10:30:42-08:00

Deque Systems Inc., a company specializing in web accessibility software, developed and registered multiple versions of its DevTools and Rules Help Pages products. To access these, users agreed not to copy, reverse-engineer, or otherwise misuse the software or its documentation. In 2021, BrowserStack, a competing firm, sought to develop its own accessibility testing tools. More than 100 BrowserStack employees created accounts with Deque—agreeing to Deque’s terms—and later, BrowserStack released an Accessibility Toolkit, which Deque alleged was developed by unlawfully copying and reverse-engineering DevTools and the Rules Help Pages. Deque filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming copyright infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and sought injunctive relief, damages, and other remedies. During discovery, Deque repeatedly failed to properly disclose its damages calculations and supporting evidence by the deadlines set in the court’s scheduling order. Despite several opportunities to supplement its disclosures and a late attempt to introduce expert testimony, Deque did not timely provide the required information. BrowserStack moved to exclude Deque’s damages evidence and for summary judgment. The district court granted these motions, finding that Deque’s noncompliance with disclosure rules was neither substantially justified nor harmless, and that Deque presented no evidence supporting injunctive or other relief. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding all evidence of Deque’s damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) due to repeated and unjustified failures to comply with disclosure requirements. The court also held that summary judgment for BrowserStack was warranted because Deque could not establish entitlement to injunctive, declaratory, or monetary relief. View "Deque Systems Inc. v. Browserstack, Inc." on Justia Law

Gombako-Amos v. Amos

2026-06-05T01:21:07-08:00

After divorcing by mutual agreement, the parties executed a property settlement agreement incorporated into their judgment of divorce. The agreement required one party, Louise, to be responsible for a Trustmark National Bank judgment and to hold the other party, Corey, harmless from liability. Subsequently, Trustmark National Bank began garnishing Louise’s wages to satisfy the judgment. Later, Corey discovered a lien from the Trustmark judgment on property he received in the divorce. To complete a sale of that property, Corey paid the remaining balance of the judgment in a lump sum, without notifying Louise of the lien or his payment. Louise learned the judgment had been released but did not know Corey had paid it. Corey then filed a contempt action in Pike County Chancery Court, alleging that Louise willfully violated the property settlement agreement by failing to fully satisfy the debt and reimburse him. After a hearing, the chancellor held Louise in willful contempt, ordering her to pay Corey the amount he had paid to release the lien, plus interest, in a lump sum within ninety days, and to pay $4,000 in attorneys’ fees within sixty days. Louise appealed to the Mississippi Court of Appeals, which affirmed the chancellor’s decision, concluding the agreement required Louise to reimburse Corey and that the chancellor did not clearly err in finding contempt. The Supreme Court of Mississippi granted certiorari. It held that there was no clear and convincing evidence that Louise willfully or deliberately violated the court’s order, as she was paying the debt through wage garnishment and was unaware of Corey’s payment. The court also found the agreement was vague regarding the manner and timing of reimbursement. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered the contempt and attorneys’ fee awards, and remanded to the chancery court to determine the timing and manner of reimbursement. View "Gombako-Amos v. Amos" on Justia Law

Hofer v. Paulson

2026-06-04T06:10:22-08:00

The dispute centers on two business partners, Hofer and Paulson, who jointly owned multiple entities, including Imaging Solutions, Inc. (ISI). After several ventures failed, both partners assumed significant individual debts to ISI. In 2016, as Paulson sought to separate his interests, the parties negotiated a "Takeout" through their chief financial officer, Heier. Hofer agreed to assume Paulson’s $1.9 million debt to ISI. Multiple agreements were executed, including an oral assumption agreement, a Master Redemption Agreement, and an ISI Redemption Agreement. Hofer later claimed he was unaware of assuming the debt, citing written assumption agreements with stamped signatures that he alleged were unauthorized. The District Court of Cass County held a bench trial in November 2024. It found the oral assumption agreement valid and enforceable, concluding Hofer had indeed assumed Paulson’s debt as part of the Takeout. The court declared the written assumption agreements invalid, dismissed Hofer’s claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, rescission, and other causes of action, and awarded statutory costs to Paulson and Heier. Paulson’s counterclaims, other than the request for declaratory judgment, were also dismissed. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal and applied a clearly erroneous standard to factual findings. It held the oral assumption agreement was not subject to the statute of frauds under N.D.C.C. § 9-06-04(2) or (5), because the agreement constituted an assumption rather than a guaranty and did not alter terms of repayment. The court found sufficient evidence of mutual consent and affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the validity and enforceability of the oral assumption agreement. View "Hofer v. Paulson" on Justia Law

Hurd v. H & H Real Estate, LLC

2026-06-03T08:49:44-08:00

The case centers on an owner of a waterfront condominium in Newport, Rhode Island, who hired a real estate agency and its agent to find a suitable tenant for his property. The agency presented a candidate, Cynthia Dziurgot, who passed credit and criminal background checks, and the owner entered into a lease with her. After several months, Dziurgot stopped paying rent and refused to vacate the property at the end of the lease, leading to an extended eviction process during the COVID-19 eviction moratorium. The owner later discovered that an internet search would have revealed a history of misconduct and legal issues involving the tenant. The plaintiff filed suit in Newport County Superior Court, alleging breach of contract and negligence by the agency and its agent for allegedly failing to adequately vet the tenant. The plaintiff intended to call a real estate expert to testify that a reasonable real estate professional would have conducted an internet search of the prospective tenant. However, after failing to produce the expert for deposition as agreed in a consent order, the court precluded the plaintiff from offering any expert testimony. The defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that without expert testimony, the plaintiff could not establish the applicable standard of care for real estate professionals. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the standard of care was not within common knowledge and required expert testimony. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The Court held that establishing the standard of care for real estate professionals regarding background searches is not within the common knowledge of laypersons and requires expert testimony. Because the plaintiff was precluded from offering such testimony, summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Hurd v. H & H Real Estate, LLC" on Justia Law

Melby v. Doering

2026-06-02T14:36:51-08:00

A couple owned a large property in Missoula County, Montana, known as Marshall Mountain, and agreed to sell it to buyers for $2,150,000. The original purchase agreement called for conventional financing, but the parties later amended their agreement to provide for seller financing through a contract for deed, specifying essential terms such as the down payment, interest rate, amortization period, and payment responsibilities. The agreement contained a title contingency, among others, and the buyers approved the preliminary title commitment, which did not include any public access easements. After negotiating drafts of the contract for deed, the sellers’ attorney added numerous new provisions, including a public access easement that would allow various groups to use the property, which was not present in the original agreement or amendment. The buyers objected to this new term, arguing that it changed the character of the property. The sellers refused to accept the buyers’ proposed revisions and terminated the agreement. The buyers filed suit in the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court, alleging breach of contract, among other claims. The District Court found that the executed buy-sell agreement and its amendment constituted an enforceable contract, that the sellers breached its express terms by refusing to close, and that the buyers were damaged, but left other issues for trial. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed de novo whether the parties’ failure to agree to the final terms of the contract for deed rendered the agreement unenforceable. The Court held that the buy-sell agreement and amendment contained all material terms necessary for the enforceable sale of real property, and that the parties did not clearly condition contract formation on later agreement to the contract for deed’s terms. The Court affirmed the District Court’s order granting partial summary judgment to the buyers. View "Melby v. Doering" on Justia Law

Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Ortiz

2026-06-02T05:02:11-08:00

This case centers on a car accident between an insured driver, Ortiz, and an uninsured motorist, Camacho, in Colorado. At the time of the collision, Camacho lacked insurance, drove with only a learner’s permit, and was unsupervised. Ortiz, insured by Progressive Direct Insurance Company, sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits from Progressive after the accident. Progressive denied the claim, asserting Ortiz was more than 50% at fault. Ortiz then sued both Camacho for negligence and Progressive for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and unreasonable delay and denial of benefits. Camacho did not respond to the lawsuit, leading the District Court for Garfield County to enter a clerk’s default against her. Progressive had been served but did not object at that time. Progressive’s answer to Ortiz’s complaint included general affirmative defenses but did not specifically assert comparative fault. After Ortiz moved for partial summary judgment, Progressive, for the first time, sought to participate in the liability and damages components of the default judgment hearing. The district court permitted Progressive to contest damages but barred it from contesting liability, finding Progressive had not timely or specifically pleaded its legitimate defenses as required under State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Brekke, 105 P.3d 177 (Colo. 2004). Progressive paid the damages awarded in the default judgment and then proceeded to trial on Ortiz’s bad faith claims, where Ortiz prevailed. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding Progressive failed to meet the Brekke standards for timely and particularized pleading of its legitimate defenses. The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed whether Brekke’s requirements should be reconsidered. The Court clarified that pleading with particularity under Rule 9(b) is only necessary if fraud or mistake is asserted, and otherwise, insurers must plead legitimate defenses specifically and as soon as practicable. The Court affirmed the appellate judgment, reaffirming Brekke and declining to overrule it. View "Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

STATE OF GEORGIA v. FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM, INC.

2026-06-02T04:16:16-08:00

The case concerns a dispute arising from an agreement between the State of Georgia and several organizations representing death row inmates. This agreement, made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, established certain conditions that had to be met before the State would resume seeking execution orders for specific inmates. One condition required that a COVID-19 vaccine be “readily available to all members of the public.” The Federal Defender Program, Inc., along with intervenors including Virgil Delano Presnell, Jr., alleged the State breached this agreement by seeking execution orders before this condition was fulfilled, specifically arguing that vaccines were not FDA-approved for children under six months old. The Superior Court of Fulton County previously granted an interlocutory injunction halting the executions, finding the agreement enforceable and the vaccine condition unmet. After further litigation focused on whether the vaccine condition was satisfied, the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The Superior Court concluded that because the FDA had not approved COVID-19 vaccines for children under six months old, the condition remained unsatisfied. It granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and issued a permanent injunction preventing the State from resuming executions until all agreement conditions were met. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia first determined it had jurisdiction, holding that intervention by a prisoner in a suit originally filed by a non-prisoner did not transform the case into a “prisoner action” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Addressing the merits, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s order. It held that the vaccine condition did not require FDA approval for every age group and that the evidence showed COVID-19 vaccines were “readily available” to all members of the public as required by the agreement. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "STATE OF GEORGIA v. FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM, INC." on Justia Law

Cave Bay Community Services v. Lohman

2026-06-01T13:36:02-08:00

Morgan Lohman purchased a 25.8-acre property from Stephen and Melinda Dreher in 2022, knowing that the property was subject to a permanent easement held by Cave Bay Community Services, Inc., and an option agreement allowing Cave Bay to purchase the easement area for one dollar once the Drehers’ loans were paid off. After the purchase, the Drehers paid off their loans, Cave Bay attempted to exercise its option, and Lohman refused to comply. Cave Bay, which had already been using the easement for a wastewater facility, filed suit against Lohman for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and specific performance. The District Court of the First Judicial District, Kootenai County, granted summary judgment to Cave Bay solely on the claim for specific performance and awarded attorney fees and costs. The court’s decision was based on its view that there were no disputed material facts and that Cave Bay was entitled to specific performance under the option agreement. The district court did not issue a detailed written opinion and did not resolve whether there was a breach of contract, focusing instead on the remedy of specific performance. The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on specific performance as if it were an independent cause of action. The Supreme Court clarified that specific performance is a remedy, not a stand-alone claim, and that entitlement to such a remedy requires first establishing a breach of contract. Because the district court had not ruled on the underlying breach, the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment, vacated the award of attorney fees and costs, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Costs on appeal were awarded to Lohman. View "Cave Bay Community Services v. Lohman" on Justia Law

Khalsa v. Ridnour

2026-06-01T13:36:01-08:00

Two neighbors in Bonner County, Idaho, own adjacent properties—one is lakefront and the other sits directly behind it without lake access. After years of disputes over easements relating to beach, lake, and parking access, the parties entered litigation. During trial, the district court mediated a settlement, which was read into the record and later formalized as a Stipulated Agreement and Order. This agreement outlined the parties’ rights to use the properties and set procedures for mediation and arbitration if further disputes arose. After signing the agreement and a minor modification by the district court, further conflicts emerged, especially regarding the construction and location of one party’s patio, use of a parking easement, a maintenance corridor, and a sprinkler system. Pursuant to the agreement, the unresolved issues were submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the lakefront property owner on all issues, finding that the other party had not complied with the agreement. The dissatisfied party then moved in the District Court of the First Judicial District to vacate the arbitration award, alleging bias and that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority. The district court denied the motion, finding the arbitrator had acted within the scope of his authority. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the district court’s denial. The Court held that the arbitrator’s decisions were within the authority granted by the parties’ agreement and the Idaho Uniform Arbitration Act. The Court found no evidence of bias and concluded the arbitrator had not rewritten or exceeded the terms of the agreement, but rather interpreted and applied it as authorized. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted attorney fees on appeal to the prevailing party under Idaho Code section 12-121. View "Khalsa v. Ridnour" on Justia Law

Hubbard v. Nexion Health at Clinton, Inc.

2026-05-29T01:21:59-08:00

Benard Hubbard II electronically signed an admissions packet and a stand-alone arbitration agreement for his father’s admission to Woodlands Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center in Clinton, Mississippi. At the time, Hubbard Sr. was competent and able to communicate with staff. Two years later, Hubbard Sr. filed a medical-negligence claim against the facility’s parent company, a physician, and a medical practice. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on the agreement signed by Hubbard II. At the hearing, both parties acknowledged that Hubbard II did not have power of attorney or formal authority and that the arbitration agreement was separate from the admission itself. Hubbard II submitted an affidavit stating he signed without consulting or receiving authority from his father, and no evidence was presented to refute this. The Hinds County Circuit Court granted the motion to compel arbitration, expressing concern about Hubbard II contesting the agreement but failing to specify any factual basis for its decision or address the defendants’ request for additional discovery. The defendants subsequently conceded in the Supreme Court of Mississippi that the factual record was insufficient to affirm the trial court’s order and requested a remand for further findings. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo and found that the record lacked evidence establishing Hubbard II’s authority to bind his father to arbitration. The court also determined that the defendants had abandoned their motion for additional discovery by failing to secure a trial court ruling. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order compelling arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hubbard v. Nexion Health at Clinton, Inc." on Justia Law

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

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

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

Groves v. Goodsell & Oviatt LLP

2026-05-28T07:20:19-08:00

A solo attorney and another law firm entered into contingency fee agreements with three clients for representation in workers’ compensation matters, providing for a 50/50 split of any attorney’s fees. After the solo attorney died, disputes arose over how much his estate was owed for fees from two resolved cases and a third pending case. The settlement for the first client was received shortly before the attorney’s death, while the second client’s case settled months later. The estate sued to recover its share of fees and for a declaratory judgment regarding the third case, which remained unresolved. The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, found that the attorney’s contracts with the second and third clients expired at his death, and that the estate had been fully paid for the first two cases. The court also awarded prejudgment interest to the estate for delayed payment on the first client’s case and ordered the estate to pay prejudgment interest to the law firm for the disputed portion of the second client’s fees that had been deposited with the court. The estate and the law firm both appealed aspects of the decision. The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the ruling that the contingency fee agreements for the second and third clients terminated upon the attorney’s death. However, it reversed the finding that the estate had been fully paid for services rendered in the second client’s case, holding that the estate could recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered before death, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. The Supreme Court also reversed the award of prejudgment interest to the law firm for the deposited funds and directed recalculation of prejudgment interest owed to the estate for the first client’s case based on the timing of unconditional tender and full payment. View "Groves v. Goodsell & Oviatt LLP" on Justia Law

Aberdeen Developers, LLC v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

2026-05-28T07:01:22-08:00

Aberdeen Developers, LLC obtained a $41 million loan secured by a mixed-use building in Chicago. The loan was governed by two agreements: a Loan Agreement and a Cash Management Agreement (CMA). During the COVID-19 pandemic, a major tenant filed for bankruptcy, which under the CMA allowed the loan servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, to trigger a Cash Sweep Event Period. As a result, building income was redirected to a special account controlled by LNR Partners. The dispute arose over how long LNR Partners could retain the excess revenue (Excess Cash Flow) in this account: Aberdeen Developers argued for monthly disbursement, while LNR Partners asserted that it could hold the funds until a specific cure event occurred, which had not and might never happen. The case was initially filed by Aberdeen Developers in Illinois state court, alleging breach of contract. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court concluded that the relevant agreements unambiguously allowed LNR Partners to retain the Excess Cash Flow until the end of the contract term and dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Seventh Circuit determined that the language in the Loan Agreement and CMA was ambiguous because both parties’ interpretations were reasonable. The court held that ambiguity in the contract meant the case could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss and factual development was required to determine the parties’ intent. The Seventh Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Aberdeen Developers, LLC v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Estate of Worrell v. Thang, Inc.

2026-05-27T13:00:37-08:00

George Bernard Worrell, Jr., a foundational member and arranger for the musical group Parliament-Funkadelic, collaborated with George Clinton and Thang, Inc. from 1969 to 1981. In 1976, Worrell was presented with a contract (the “1976 Agreement”) by Thang, Inc., which purported to grant Thang full ownership of sound recordings Worrell contributed to, in exchange for royalties. Over the years, Worrell and his estate asserted that Thang and Clinton failed to pay royalties due under this agreement. Worrell died in 2016, and his estate became the plaintiff in subsequent litigation. After Worrell’s estate sued Thang and Clinton in New York state court for breach of contract related to the 1976 Agreement, the New York Supreme Court dismissed the suit. The court found that the agreement was not enforceable because it had not been signed by Thang, and the estate did not refute this. Subsequently, the estate filed a new action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking a declaration of joint copyright ownership in the sound recordings and an accounting of royalties. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the estate’s copyright claims were untimely. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment. The court held that, given the unique circumstances—including the parties’ decades-long conduct in apparent reliance on the 1976 Agreement—there was a factual question as to whether Clinton and Thang had “plainly and expressly repudiated” Worrell’s copyright co-ownership before 2020. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that part of the estate’s copyright-ownership claim is timely. The court also found genuine disputes of material fact as to Worrell’s status as a co-author of the recordings. View "Estate of Worrell v. Thang, Inc." on Justia Law

Guild Mortgage Company v. CrossCounty Mortgage

2026-05-27T11:31:48-08:00

Guild Mortgage Company LLC and CrossCountry Mortgage LLC are direct competitors in the residential mortgage industry. Over an 18-month period, several Guild employees in the Kirkland, Washington branch, including the branch manager and other high-level staff, were allegedly recruited by CrossCountry while still employed by Guild. According to the complaints, these employees solicited their colleagues to also move to CrossCountry, diverted customers and loan applications, and accessed Guild’s computer systems to take confidential and proprietary information. The employees had signed agreements with Guild prohibiting such conduct, and Guild subsequently lost nearly its entire Kirkland branch workforce to CrossCountry. After Guild initiated arbitration against the former employees and prevailed, it filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of San Diego County against CrossCountry. Guild’s claims included interference with economic advantage, interference with contract, violation of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CCDAFA), unfair competition, and aiding and abetting tortious conduct. The Superior Court sustained CrossCountry’s demurrers, finding that the claims were preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) or otherwise failed to state a cause of action, and dismissed the case without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that Guild had adequately alleged actionable duties of loyalty and, for the branch manager, fiduciary duty, that were breached by the employees and aided by CrossCountry. The court found that the claims for interference and violation of the CCDAFA were not displaced by CUTSA because they arose from conduct beyond trade secret misappropriation. The court also held that the unfair competition claim could proceed since the other claims were viable. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in favor of CrossCountry and remanded for further proceedings. View "Guild Mortgage Company v. CrossCounty Mortgage" on Justia Law

Jay Patel v. LandingPartners LLC et al.

2026-05-27T08:49:05-08:00

A dispute arose following a failed real estate transaction involving the sale of a hotel property in Warwick, Rhode Island. The property was to be sold by Shiva, LLC, of which Jay Patel was the registered agent, to LandingPartners LLC under a Purchase and Sale and Discounted Pay-Off Agreement. Centreville Bank held a mortgage on the property, which was in default. When Shiva, Airport Hospitality (another entity linked to Patel), and Patel failed to respond to an earlier lawsuit brought by LandingPartners, the Superior Court entered a default judgment against them, ordering specific performance of their obligations under the agreement and appointing a commissioner to facilitate the closing. Afterward, LandingPartners and Centreville Bank reached a consent order with new terms for the sale and discharged the mortgage, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. Shortly after the dismissal of the first case, Patel filed a new lawsuit in the Washington County Superior Court against LandingPartners, Centreville, and a related entity, 1850 Post Road Owner LLC. He alleged violations of the agreement, fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata because they arose from the same transaction addressed in the prior litigation. The Superior Court agreed, finding that the parties or their privies were the same, the issues arose from the same transaction, and there was a final judgment in the first action. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Court held that res judicata barred Patel’s claims, as all issues now raised were or could have been raised in the initial suit, and the new claims concerned the same transaction. The dismissal of Patel’s complaint with prejudice was therefore upheld. View "Jay Patel v. LandingPartners LLC et al." on Justia Law

Declan Flight, Inc. v. Textron eAviation, Inc.

2026-05-26T10:04:34-08:00

Two American companies, Declan Flight, Inc. and Right Rudder Aviation, LLC (RRA), developed successful sales and distribution relationships with Pipistrel, a Slovenian aircraft manufacturer, through contracts signed in 2020 and 2021. Their contracts contained forum-selection clauses specifying Slovenia as the forum for disputes. In 2022, Textron, Inc., a large U.S. aerospace company, acquired Pipistrel through its subsidiary Textron eAviation, Inc. Shortly after the acquisition, Textron and eAviation orchestrated the termination of Declan’s and RRA’s contracts. RRA also lost a separate sales contract with Mesa Airlines after Textron and eAviation allegedly interfered with that business relationship. Declan and RRA sued Textron and eAviation in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging tortious interference with the Pipistrel contracts and with the Mesa Airlines contract. The district court dismissed the claims related to the Pipistrel contracts (Counts I and II) for forum non conveniens, holding that the forum-selection clauses could be enforced by Textron and eAviation—nonsignatories—under the federal doctrine of equitable estoppel, thus requiring litigation to proceed in Slovenia. The district court also found that personal jurisdiction existed for the Mesa Airlines claim (Count III), but dismissed it for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Counts I and II. The court held that the applicability of the forum-selection clauses is governed by Slovenian law, not federal common law, and that Slovenian law does not permit nonsignatories to invoke these clauses. Thus, the district court erred in applying the modified forum non conveniens rule from Atlantic Marine. The Eleventh Circuit also reversed the finding of personal jurisdiction over Textron and eAviation as to Count III, remanding all claims for further proceedings. View "Declan Flight, Inc. v. Textron eAviation, Inc." on Justia Law

THAKUR V. TRUMP

2026-05-26T08:01:13-08:00

Several researchers at the University of California received multi-year federal grants from agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In April 2025, these agencies terminated the research grants by issuing form letters, citing shifts in agency priorities and referencing multiple Executive Orders issued by the President, some of which explicitly aimed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and related initiatives from the federal government. The affected researchers alleged these terminations resulted in lost funding, harm to their reputations, and disruption to their projects, with no ready alternative sources of support. The researchers filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting constitutional and statutory claims, including violations of the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court provisionally certified two classes: one consisting of researchers whose grants were terminated by form letter without grant-specific explanation (the Form Termination Class), and another whose grants were terminated specifically due to the DEI Executive Orders (the DEI Termination Class). The district court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the reinstatement of the grants for both classes. The government appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs had established Article III standing. It reversed the preliminary injunction for the Form Termination Class, concluding that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction over their APA claim because the claim was essentially contractual and thus barred by the Tucker Act. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction for the DEI Termination Class, finding that the class was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim because the grant terminations were based on viewpoint discrimination. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "THAKUR V. TRUMP" on Justia Law

Langley v. Autocraft, Inc

2026-05-22T07:41:31-08:00

An individual who previously worked for a company left his employment in 2015, but in 2016 was invited by the company’s founder and sole owner to consider returning. Before rejoining, the individual drafted a one-page agreement that was signed by both himself and the owner. This document set out employment terms, including salary, vacation, and, crucially, a provision that he would receive a 10% ownership interest in the company after five years of employment, subject to certain conditions. These conditions included the individual’s own decision to accept the ownership, a review of the company’s finances after four years, and an arrangement for the purchase of the remaining ownership interest over a period of five to ten years. The agreement also contained language giving the individual considerable discretion over changes to its terms. The individual resumed employment in 2017 and was terminated in 2022, after more than five years with the company. After his termination, the individual filed suit in Guilford County Superior Court against the company for breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment. During discovery, the owner claimed he had signed the agreement only in his individual capacity, leading the individual to file a separate suit against the owner in Randolph County. Both suits were designated as mandatory complex business cases and were consolidated in the North Carolina Business Court. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the agreement was unenforceable. The Business Court granted summary judgment, finding the agreement was illusory because it gave the individual unlimited discretion over its terms. The individual appealed directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the relevant provision of the agreement was void for indefiniteness, not merely illusory. The Court determined that the ownership provision and its sub-provisions were inseparable and lacked essential terms, such as price and payment schedule, rendering enforcement impossible. The Court also rejected the individual's equitable arguments. The decision of the Business Court was modified and affirmed. View "Langley v. Autocraft, Inc" on Justia Law

Rel. Ins., Inc. v. Pilot Risk Mgmt. Consulting, LLC

2026-05-22T07:41:29-08:00

A holding company and its North Carolina insurance agency subsidiary, which function as intermediaries between clients and insurance carriers, experienced significant employee dissatisfaction after a shift in commission structure and a pay freeze in early 2020. This led to multiple employees, including both producers and account managers, leaving over several months to join a direct competitor, a new agency formed by a former employee. The departing employees had signed agreements with non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses. During their departures, some employees forwarded company documents to personal accounts, and, after litigation began, engaged in extensive deletion of electronic evidence. Previously, in Guilford County Superior Court, the plaintiffs had sued a former producer, with most claims dismissed except for breach of employment agreement, and that suit was later settled. In the current litigation, after discovery, both sides sought partial summary judgment in the North Carolina Business Court (Superior Court for Complex Business Cases). The Business Court granted summary judgment in part for both parties, including a grant of adverse inference against defendants for spoliation of evidence, but did not specify how that inference would apply to each claim. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the interlocutory appeal. It affirmed the adverse inference ruling but remanded for the Business Court to clarify its specific application. The Court reversed the Business Court’s summary judgment that two client lists could not be trade secrets, holding there were genuine issues of fact. It clarified the standard for misappropriation of trade secrets under state law, requiring evidence of a specific opportunity to acquire trade secrets without authorization. The Court remanded claims related to trade secrets, enforcement of non-solicitation provisions (pending factual findings on the scope of the employer and affiliates), and certain computer fraud claims for further proceedings. Summary judgment for defendants on unjust enrichment was affirmed, and the Business Court was directed to issue a written opinion for claims it disposed of in a summary order. The disposition was thus affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rel. Ins., Inc. v. Pilot Risk Mgmt. Consulting, LLC" on Justia Law

Tallichet v. Jackson Hole Community Radio, Inc.

2026-05-22T07:16:27-08:00

A man who founded a nonprofit community radio station in Wyoming contributed substantial sums of money to the station over several years. He claimed these were loans intended to support the station’s operations and expected repayment. Although he discussed loan terms with the station’s board and referenced a loan at a board meeting, no written agreement was ever executed, and he did not follow through on drafting a loan contract. Despite the lack of formal documentation, the station’s tax filings, prepared with his assistance, listed the contributions as loans, but other board members were not aware of or had not approved these filings until after he withdrew a significant amount as “repayment” and subsequently left the station. The District Court of Teton County reviewed the claims after the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff alleged breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment, asserting that the station’s tax filings and board members’ awareness supported his claims. The district court found no evidence of a written or oral agreement approved by the board, determined that the statute of frauds barred the implied contract claim, and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The court also found the unjust enrichment claim was barred by the statute of frauds. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s judgment de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that the breach of implied contract claim was barred by the statute of frauds, as no definite or certain terms existed to remove the agreement from the statute’s requirements. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Wyoming law does not bar unjust enrichment claims by the statute of frauds. Nevertheless, it held that the plaintiff failed to show the station was reasonably notified that repayment was expected, as required for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant. View "Tallichet v. Jackson Hole Community Radio, Inc." on Justia Law

VERSATA SOFTWARE, LLC v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

2026-05-22T06:02:56-08:00

Ford retained Versata to develop specialized software to manage its vehicle configuration processes, resulting in two main products: Automotive Configuration Manager (ACM) and Materials Cost Analytics (MCA). The parties entered into a licensing agreement in 2004, which eventually expired in 2014 without renewal. Ford then released its own software, PDO, which Versata alleged incorporated its proprietary trade secrets from ACM and MCA. Disputes arose when Ford sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and non-misappropriation, while Versata counterclaimed, alleging trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA), as well as breach of contract. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan excluded Versata’s damages expert’s testimony regarding trade secret damages, limiting Versata to a reasonable royalty model based solely on the parties’ prior licensing history. At trial, the jury found Ford liable for misappropriating three ACM trade secrets and breaching the licensing agreement, awarding Versata $22,386,000 for trade secret misappropriation and $82,260,000 for breach of contract. However, the district court subsequently reduced these awards: it set trade secret damages to zero, citing insufficient evidence regarding the time required for Ford to independently develop the misappropriated trade secrets, and reduced breach of contract damages to $3, finding Versata’s evidence insufficient to support the jury’s calculation. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment on trade secret damages and remanded for a new trial, holding that Versata was entitled to seek unjust enrichment damages under both the DTSA and MUTSA, and that the district court erred in precluding consideration of alternative damages models. The Federal Circuit also reversed the reduction of the breach of contract damages, reinstating the jury’s $82,260,000 award, and affirmed the denial of Ford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on trade secret misappropriation liability. View "VERSATA SOFTWARE, LLC v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY " on Justia Law

Corotoman, Inc. v. Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority

2026-05-21T11:15:25-08:00

A regional airport authority undertook a project to remove a hill from land owned by a private property holder. Instead of purchasing the land outright, the parties entered into an agreement allowing the airport authority to remove the hill and, afterwards, to further lower the elevation of the property by overblasting, which would make future development easier for the owner. The airport authority completed the hill removal but failed to perform the overblasting. The landowner then sued for breach of contract, seeking damages for the incomplete work. The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia found that the airport authority had breached the agreement and granted partial summary judgment to the landowner on liability. Both sides submitted expert reports concerning the cost to complete the required overblasting, ultimately agreeing that this cost was over $4 million. However, the district court held that the cost of completion was grossly disproportionate to the value of the property and applied the “gross disproportionality” rule, awarding only nominal damages because it found insufficient evidence of the property’s diminution in value. The landowner appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit certified to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia the question of whether, how, and by whom the gross disproportionality rule should be applied in such cases. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that, in breach of construction contract cases, the gross disproportionality rule may be applied to limit damages. The court clarified that gross disproportionality is calculated using the diminution in value approach, measuring the difference in value between the property as is and as it should have been if the contract had been fully performed. The court further held that the breaching party bears the burden of invoking and proving gross disproportionality. If the breaching party fails to meet this burden, the non-breaching party’s proven measure of damages applies. View "Corotoman, Inc. v. Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority" on Justia Law

OLSON V. FCA US, LLC

2026-05-21T08:01:11-08:00

Jeffrey Olson leased a Jeep Grand Cherokee from a car dealership under a lease agreement that included an arbitration provision and a delegation clause, which assigned questions about the scope of arbitration to an arbitrator. FCA US, LLC, the manufacturer of the Jeep, was not a signatory to the lease agreement. Olson later became the named plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit against FCA, alleging defects in the vehicle’s headrest system. FCA, not being a party to the lease, sought to compel Olson to arbitrate the dispute based on the arbitration agreement between Olson and the dealership. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied FCA’s motion to compel arbitration. The district court found that FCA, as a non-signatory to the lease agreement, could not enforce the arbitration provision or its delegation clause against Olson. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement applied only to Olson and the dealership (including its employees, agents, successors, or assigns), and FCA did not qualify under any of those categories. Additionally, the court rejected FCA’s argument that it could use equitable estoppel to compel arbitration, holding that none of Olson’s claims were sufficiently intertwined with the lease agreement to justify such an exception under California law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that FCA could not compel Olson to arbitrate because FCA was not a party to the arbitration agreement and no applicable exception—such as equitable estoppel—applied. The court clarified that, under both federal and California law, only parties to an arbitration agreement (or those qualifying under specific, limited exceptions) may enforce it. The court also rejected FCA’s reliance on Supreme Court precedent, finding it inapplicable to non-signatories in these circumstances. View "OLSON V. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law

Sleep v. Steele

2026-05-21T07:15:45-08:00

Two siblings inherited a ranch and campground from their father. One sibling actively managed the properties, operated the business, and distributed annual payments to the other sibling based on her ownership share. Over time, the managing sibling purchased their mother’s interest, consulted an accountant who advised filing partnership tax returns, and continued to issue payments and tax forms to the other sibling. The siblings discussed formalizing their arrangement into business entities, but never completed operating agreements or transferred property. Later, they negotiated the sale of one sibling’s interest in the cattle herd, and a check was delivered, but not cashed. The non-managing sibling subsequently asserted that she had not agreed to the sale and claimed a partnership existed between them. The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Lawrence County, South Dakota, held a bifurcated trial on the partnership and partition issues. After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, it found that the siblings did not intend to jointly carry on a business for profit and had not formed a partnership under South Dakota law. It further determined that an enforceable agreement existed for the sale of the non-managing sibling’s interest in the cattle herd, despite her attempts to disavow the sale after the fact. The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the circuit court’s factual findings for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo. It affirmed, holding that no partnership was formed because the siblings lacked the requisite intent and co-ownership control for a partnership under SDCL 48-7A-202. It also upheld the finding that an enforceable contract existed for the sale of the cattle interest. The Supreme Court’s disposition was to affirm the circuit court’s judgment in all respects. View "Sleep v. Steele" on Justia Law

Blackwell v. Planet Fitness Franchising, LLC

2026-05-21T06:43:51-08:00

An individual regularly visited a commercial exercise facility as a guest of a member who held a special tier of membership, which allowed guests to accompany them. After several months of incident-free visits, the guest experienced two confrontational encounters with facility employees on consecutive days. On the first day, an employee refused the guest entry, questioned his status, and acted in a hostile manner. The following day, the same employee behaved in an intimidating way, and another employee threatened to bar the guest from the facility and called the police. The guest was not barred or arrested, and the police deemed it a non-police matter. Later, the guest was informed that no employees would be disciplined, and, months after the incident, he was accused by the business of making harassing phone calls, which he denied. The guest filed suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against the facility and related entities, alleging assault, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and supervision, and breach of contract. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the facts alleged did not support any of the legal claims. The Superior Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. The appellate court held that the guest did not plausibly allege imminent apprehension of harmful contact necessary for assault, nor conduct sufficiently extreme or outrageous to support intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court also found that the facility’s marketing statements did not create a duty necessary for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and that the guest was not an intended third-party beneficiary of any contract between the member and the facility. The dismissal of all claims was affirmed. View "Blackwell v. Planet Fitness Franchising, LLC" on Justia Law

PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty

2026-05-19T12:30:41-08:00

An engineer who had worked for more than two decades at a manufacturing company resigned after a demotion and accepted a leadership position at a competitor. As he was leaving, the company discovered that he had potentially printed several documents containing confidential information about its products. Although forensic analysis could not confirm that he actually printed these documents, the company concluded he had taken trade secrets and sued him and his new employer, alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The company sought a preliminary injunction to prevent disclosure of the alleged secrets and to restrict the engineer’s work with the competitor. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the preliminary injunction. The district court ruled that the company failed to meet its burden by not providing “clear and convincing” evidence for each of the four required factors for a preliminary injunction: likelihood of success on the merits, risk of irreparable harm, risk of harm to others, and the public interest. The court treated each factor as a separate prerequisite, each requiring clear and convincing proof. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, clarifying that the district court had committed a legal error. The appellate court held that the correct approach is to weigh all four preliminary injunction factors together in a sliding-scale analysis, not to require clear and convincing evidence for each factor individually. It explained that a heightened standard of proof is not mandated unless required by statute, the Constitution, or in rare cases involving unusually coercive government action, none of which applied here. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration under the appropriate standard. View "PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty" on Justia Law

Diaz v. Select Portfolio Servicing

2026-05-18T07:40:18-08:00

The dispute centers on foreclosure proceedings involving a residential property in West Warwick, Rhode Island. The plaintiffs purchased the property in 2006, executing a mortgage and promissory note with Long Beach Mortgage Company. After defaulting on the mortgage payment due July 1, 2022, Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS), the mortgage servicer, sent a notice of default and right to cure by certified mail in August 2022. The mortgage had previously been assigned to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. Following further notices, including a notice of acceleration, the property was sold at foreclosure in April 2023. Plaintiffs then filed suit, alleging wrongful foreclosure based on purported defects in the required notices, specifically arguing that the notices failed to strictly comply with paragraph 22 of the mortgage contract, which governs the notice requirements prior to foreclosure. In Kent County Superior Court, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the notices strictly complied with the contractual requirements and properly informed plaintiffs of their rights, including the right to cure and reinstate. Plaintiffs objected, asserting that the notice of default contained inaccuracies regarding the cure date and that the notice of acceleration used language that was insufficiently unequivocal with respect to their right to reinstate. The hearing justice found no genuine issues of material fact and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, concluding that the notices satisfied the requirements of the mortgage. Judgment was entered in February 2025. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case de novo. It held that the notice of default strictly complied with paragraph 22 of the mortgage, adequately informed plaintiffs of the required cure date, and unequivocally stated the right to reinstate after acceleration. The Court further determined that the notice of acceleration was not required to reiterate the right to reinstate in the same manner. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "Diaz v. Select Portfolio Servicing" on Justia Law

TRAMMELL V. KLN ENTERPRISES, INC.

2026-05-15T08:31:24-08:00

A consumer purchased a licorice product manufactured by a Minnesota company, relying on packaging that stated the product was “Naturally Flavored,” “Natural Strawberry & Raspberry Flavored Licorice,” and “Free of . . . Artificial Colors & Flavors.” The consumer later learned, through laboratory testing, that the product contained DL malic acid, which is an artificial flavor created from petrochemical sources. The consumer alleged that this ingredient rendered the product’s labeling false or misleading, and filed a putative class action in California, asserting claims for violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court found that the complaint failed to plead with sufficient particularity that the malic acid was artificial, thus not meeting the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court also held that the plaintiff did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the product’s labeling, reasoning that the labels did not explicitly state the product was “all natural” or “100% natural,” and that the ingredients list disclosed both natural and artificial ingredients. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the complaint satisfied Rule 9(b) because it identified the specifics of the alleged fraud and provided details about the laboratory testing. The court also held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer could be misled by the product’s claim to be free of artificial flavors when it allegedly contained an artificial flavor. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "TRAMMELL V. KLN ENTERPRISES, INC." on Justia Law

American Express National Bank v. Perretta

2026-05-15T08:14:54-08:00

The dispute centers on allegations of breach of contract and related claims involving a credit card account that the defendant allegedly opened with a national bank. The bank claimed that the defendant opened the account, used it for purchases and cash advances, and then defaulted by failing to make the required payments, leaving a substantial unpaid balance. The defendant denied the material allegations in her answer to the complaint. After the initial pleadings, the bank moved for summary judgment in the Kent County Superior Court, asserting that there were no material facts in dispute and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Importantly, the bank’s motion was not initially accompanied by any supporting affidavits or exhibits. The defendant filed an affidavit in opposition, pointing out the lack of any supporting affidavit from the bank. On the day of the hearing, the bank submitted an affidavit by emailing it to the hearing justice’s clerk, rather than filing and serving it in accordance with procedural rules. Despite the defendant’s objections to this late submission and improper service, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, relying on the belated affidavit. Final judgment was entered, and the defendant appealed. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Supreme Court found that the bank’s failure to timely file and serve the affidavit, as required by Rule 6(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, prejudiced the defendant’s ability to respond. The Supreme Court held that the hearing justice erred in relying on the untimely affidavit and in not postponing the hearing. The judgment of the Superior Court was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. View "American Express National Bank v. Perretta" on Justia Law

BRAXTON MINERALS III, LLC v. BAUER

2026-05-15T06:11:30-08:00

An Oklahoma company, formed to acquire mineral rights in Appalachia, alleged that two Texas parties failed to convey certain West Virginia mineral interests as contractually agreed. The Oklahoma company, which included non-Texas owners and participants, had funded the purchase of these rights, but a number of mineral deeds were recorded in the name of the Texas seller rather than the buyer. As a result, royalties from those mineral rights were paid to the seller. The Oklahoma plaintiff sought to compel the Texas defendants to reform the deeds, perform their contractual obligations, declare the plaintiff’s entitlement to the royalties, and enjoin the defendants from transferring the disputed interests. The 141st District Court in Tarrant County, Texas, denied the defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction and ultimately granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, awarding specific performance, deed reformation, declaratory relief, an injunction, and monetary relief. The court found it had jurisdiction over the parties and the contract, even though the mineral rights were located in West Virginia. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas reversed, holding that Texas courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the suit’s gravamen was the adjudication of title to foreign (West Virginia) real property. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the matter and disagreed with the appellate court’s application of the so-called “gist” rule. The Supreme Court held that Texas courts with personal jurisdiction over the parties may issue in personam judgments concerning contractual obligations to convey out-of-state real property, as long as the judgment binds only the parties and does not purport to establish or alter title to the property by the court’s own force. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and remanded for consideration of remaining issues. View "BRAXTON MINERALS III, LLC v. BAUER" on Justia Law

WANG v. WHITTENBURG

2026-05-15T06:11:30-08:00

The case involves disputes among the descendants of Roy and Grace Whittenburg, who were beneficiaries of separate trusts holding interests in a large ranch spanning New Mexico and Colorado. After years of litigation over the ranch’s ownership, the parties signed two settlement agreements: a Partial Settlement Agreement (PSA) and a later Compromise Settlement Agreement (CSA). These agreements were intended to resolve their disputes, with provisions for partitioning the ranch and a clause designating Texas as the forum for enforcement. When the parties could not agree on partitioning, a group led by Angela Kate initiated partition proceedings in New Mexico, as allowed by the agreements. Another group, led by John Burk, opposed the partition, resulting in protracted litigation and additional attorney’s fees. The 251st District Court of Randall County, Texas, after a bench trial, found John Burk had breached the settlement agreements by opposing the partition in the New Mexico litigation, causing Angela Kate to incur $216,112 in extra attorney’s fees. Despite these findings, the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment, holding that the attorney’s fees from the New Mexico litigation were not recoverable as damages. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed, reasoning that the American Rule barred recovery of such fees as damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals. It held that the American Rule does not bar recovery of attorney’s fees incurred in prior litigation as damages for breach of a settlement agreement, provided the breach was not itself the basis for that prior litigation. Because the fees at issue resulted from litigation initiated before John Burk’s breach, Angela Kate was entitled to recover those excess fees as actual damages. The Court also held she could seek reasonable attorney’s fees for the Texas suit, remanding for reconsideration of the appropriate amount. View "WANG v. WHITTENBURG" on Justia Law

U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. Bonilla

2026-05-15T05:30:41-08:00

A real estate transaction in Shelby County, Alabama, gave rise to this dispute. In 2007, a property owner named Ellison financed the purchase of her home with a loan secured by a mortgage, which was eventually sold to U.S. Bank Trust National Association and serviced by SN Servicing Corporation. After Ellison defaulted, U.S. Bank bought property at a foreclosure sale. Due to confusion over addresses and a lack of a survey, U.S. Bank and its agent mistakenly believed they were selling the Ellison property, a valuable bricked double-wide trailer, to Marco J. Bonilla. Bonilla purchased the property for $95,000, but later discovered that the deed conveyed a different and less valuable property. He was unable to resell the property he believed he owned. Bonilla sued U.S. Bank and SN Servicing in the Shelby Circuit Court, asserting claims for conversion, breach of contract, negligence, wantonness, and sought rescission of the deed. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Bonilla on all claims, rescinded the transaction, ordered Bonilla to execute a quitclaim deed returning the property, and awarded him $114,000 in compensatory damages, $14,913.70 in interest, and $75,000 in punitive damages for wantonness. The court denied the defendants’ postjudgment motion without a hearing. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment for Bonilla on his claims for conversion, breach of contract, and negligence, as well as the compensatory and interest awards. However, the Court reversed the summary judgment on the wantonness claim and the award of punitive damages, holding that wantonness involves disputed factual issues concerning the defendants’ mental state that should be determined by a jury. The case was remanded for further proceedings on wantonness and punitive damages. View "U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. Bonilla" on Justia Law

American Exch. Bank v. Topp

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

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

Everest Stables, Inc. v. Porter, Wright LLP

2026-05-14T07:31:35-08:00

A Minnesota thoroughbred horse breeding and racing company and its CEO became dissatisfied with the legal work of three separate law firms in various matters, including business contract drafting and litigation. They hired an attorney employed by a national law firm to pursue legal malpractice claims against their prior counsel. Engagement letters for some of this representation included a provision selecting Ohio law to govern the attorney-client relationship. The malpractice actions against the original firms were unsuccessful, with adverse judgments in both federal and state courts. Following these outcomes, the company and CEO sued their new attorneys in federal court in Minnesota, alleging malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid legal fees. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the malpractice, contract, and fiduciary duty claims related to two of the underlying matters (those involving Dorsey and Foley) as time-barred under Ohio’s one-year statute of limitations, which the court applied pursuant to the contractual choice-of-law provision. The court held that plaintiffs did not meet the rare standard for substituting Minnesota’s longer statute of limitations. For the remaining malpractice claim (involving Rambicure), the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants because plaintiffs failed to serve the expert disclosure affidavit required by Minnesota law within the deadline, and expert testimony was necessary to establish a prima facie case. The court also dismissed related fraud claims on the same grounds. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. It held that Ohio’s one-year statute of limitations barred the malpractice, contract, and fiduciary duty claims arising from the Dorsey and Foley matters. It also held that dismissal of the Rambicure-related claims and the fraud claims for failure to serve the required expert disclosure affidavit was proper, as expert testimony was necessary to support those claims. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. View "Everest Stables, Inc. v. Porter, Wright LLP" on Justia Law

Shevling v. Major

2026-05-14T07:11:52-08:00

A married couple, both active-duty military members, separated after nearly two decades of marriage and executed a notarized separation agreement in 2020 while stationed in Okinawa. The agreement provided that the wife would receive $1,500 per month in maintenance until divorce, 20% of the husband’s military retirement pay upon his retirement, and be named as beneficiary of his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The wife later initiated a divorce in South Dakota, and the parties submitted a stipulation and settlement agreement incorporating key provisions from their separation. The divorce decree was filed in February 2021. Over time, the husband failed to make some required maintenance payments and, after retiring, did not pay the wife her portion of his retirement nor complete the SBP paperwork. The wife sought contempt and modifications, while the husband argued compliance was impossible due to deficiencies in the decree. The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Charles Mix County, declined to hold the husband in contempt, finding the divorce decree’s orders too vague for enforcement. The court denied modification of the property division, found no fraud or coercion, and refused to vacate the decree. It reduced the wife’s retirement share from 20% to 16.1% using a coverture formula, ordered payment of $5,000 in arrears plus 8% interest, and instructed the husband to effectuate the SBP. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that reducing the wife’s retirement share below the agreed 20% was error, as was applying an 8% rather than the statutory 10% interest rate to arrears. The court remanded for correction of those issues, but affirmed the denial of contempt, refusal to vacate the decree, and the exclusion of additional payments for stimulus or tax refunds. The court also found no due process violations or abuse of discretion in declining to take sworn testimony. View "Shevling v. Major" on Justia Law

GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION GROUP, LLC v. US

2026-05-14T06:02:26-08:00

The case concerns the United States Postal Service’s contract for canine explosive-detection services. The USPS awarded the contract to K2 Solutions, Inc. (“K2”), while Global K9 Protection Group (“Global K9”) and Michael Stapleton Associates, Ltd. were unsuccessful bidders. Global K9 filed a bid protest in the United States Court of Federal Claims, initially challenging the evaluation of its bid but not directly alleging misconduct by K2. K2 received notice of the original complaint and chose not to intervene, believing the government would adequately defend its interests. The Claims Court case evolved when Global K9 filed an amended complaint under seal, adding new allegations that K2 had materially misrepresented its capabilities during the bidding process. Contrary to court rules and the protective order, Global K9 did not file a redacted public version of the amended complaint, and K2 did not receive notice of these new allegations. The Claims Court ultimately found that K2 had made a material misrepresentation and issued an injunction disqualifying K2 from contract performance. After learning of the injunction, K2 moved to intervene, but by then, the USPS had terminated K2’s contract for default, relying in part on the court’s findings. K2 appealed the denial of its motion to intervene. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held the case was not moot because K2’s interests in contesting the misrepresentation finding remained live in separate proceedings. However, the appellate court affirmed the Claims Court’s decision that K2’s motion to intervene was untimely, as K2 could have sought intervention upon learning of the amended complaint’s existence. The Federal Circuit also found that K2 was not a necessary party because it failed to act promptly to protect its interests. The judgment of the Claims Court was affirmed. View "GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION GROUP, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

Fairstead Capital Management LLC v. Blodgett

2026-05-13T07:33:05-08:00

A hedge fund manager, his personal attorney, and an expert in affordable housing formed a business complex to invest in affordable housing projects. The business was successful and expanded, with the expert, Blodgett, bringing in a new partner, Tatum, and building a tax credit investment arm. Blodgett and Tatum, believing they deserved more equity, devised plans either to restructure the company or to leave and start a competitor. During these efforts, Blodgett shared confidential information with family offices and advisors. When their restructuring plan was rejected, they moved toward departure. An attorney for the business, monitoring internal emails, discovered evidence that Blodgett was preparing to launch a new venture. Blodgett was terminated for cause, and his equity interests were purportedly canceled. Blodgett initiated arbitration, alleging breach of his employment agreement, while two affiliates of the business sued him in the Delaware Court of Chancery for breach of LLC agreements; Blodgett counterclaimed, asserting improper cancellation of his equity. The arbitrator found Blodgett breached his employment agreement’s confidentiality provisions but ruled that only his equity in pending deals could be canceled. Blodgett’s equity in non-pending deals remained protected, as the LLC agreements did not provide an independent right to cancel his interests. In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, the court held that Blodgett was entitled to summary judgment. The court found that Blodgett’s conduct was in his capacity as an employee, governed by his employment agreement, not as a member under the LLC agreements. The court had previously granted summary judgment to Blodgett on the issue of improper equity cancellation and reaffirmed this, clarifying that the LLC agreements did not provide an independent basis for forfeiture. The court granted summary judgment for Blodgett and directed further proceedings on remedies for the improper cancellation of his equity in non-pending deals. View "Fairstead Capital Management LLC v. Blodgett" on Justia Law

Banco San Juan Internacional, Inc. v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of N.Y., Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv.

2026-05-13T07:00:09-08:00

A Puerto Rican international banking entity, which operated under an offshore charter and was regulated by Puerto Rico’s Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions, maintained a master account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In 2019, following a federal investigation into potential anti-money laundering violations involving a Venezuelan client, the entity’s offices were raided and its account was temporarily suspended. After the investigation concluded with a fine and compliance improvements, the account was restored under stricter risk-mitigation terms. However, in 2022 and 2023, the Federal Reserve Bank determined the entity had not met required compliance standards and ultimately terminated the master account, citing serious risk concerns related to money laundering and deficiencies in compliance programs. The entity sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to compel reinstatement of its account and damages. It claimed a statutory entitlement to a master account under the Federal Reserve Act, as amended by the Monetary Control Act, and brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, Mandamus Act, Declaratory Judgment Act, the Fifth Amendment, and New York contract law, among others. The district court denied preliminary relief and dismissed all claims, holding that the relevant statutes did not create a nondiscretionary entitlement to a master account and finding failures in both standing and the plausibility of the claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. It held that the Federal Reserve Act does not grant depository institutions a statutory or nondiscretionary right to a master account; instead, regional Reserve Banks retain discretion over account access. The court further found that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, failed to plausibly allege contract or constitutional claims, and that amendment of the complaint would be futile. The district court’s judgment was affirmed in all respects. View "Banco San Juan Internacional, Inc. v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of N.Y., Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv." on Justia Law

BMK Enterprises v. Bailey

2026-05-12T13:35:41-08:00

BMK Enterprises purchased a commercial property from Bailey Enterprises in 2018. As part of the transaction, the parties agreed to a provision granting BMK a right of first refusal if Bailey decided to sell the adjacent Bolinger Property, which contained storage units. In 2019, Bailey informed BMK of its intent to sell the Bolinger Property, but BMK did not purchase it at that time. Bailey later sold the Bolinger Property to a third party in 2021 without further notice to BMK. BMK subsequently filed suit against Bailey for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, alleging that Bailey failed to honor the right of first refusal provision. BMK also sued the real estate broker and agent involved in the sale, but those claims were dismissed and are not part of this appeal. The District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District granted summary judgment in favor of Bailey. It concluded that the right of first refusal provision was unenforceable as a matter of law because it inadequately described the property subject to the right and failed to specify the price, rendering the contract provision ambiguous and void. The court declined to consider extrinsic evidence to clarify the parties’ intent, reasoning that the ambiguity could not be resolved through legal canons or extrinsic evidence. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. It held that while the provision was ambiguous, the District Court erred by not considering extrinsic evidence to ascertain the parties’ intent and resolve the ambiguity. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether extrinsic evidence could clarify the object of the contract and render the right of first refusal enforceable. View "BMK Enterprises v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Dawadi v. Adhikari

2026-05-12T12:32:10-08:00

In January 2015, the plaintiff loaned money to Pradhi, Inc., a corporation controlled by the defendant, under a written agreement requiring repayment within one year at zero percent interest. No payments were made during the one-year repayment period, which ended in January 2016. Beginning in June 2021, over five years after the loan was due, the defendant made three $1,000 payments, with the first two checks referencing the loan in their memo sections. The defendant later denied owing the debt, and refused to provide a personal guarantee. The plaintiff filed suit in July 2024, alleging breach of contract and fraud. The Superior Court of San Diego County reviewed the case. The defendants responded with a demurrer, arguing that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff opposed, asserting that the check annotations constituted a written acknowledgment of the debt sufficient to revive it under Western Coal and Mining Co. v. Jones. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the four-year statute of limitations for written contracts had expired by January 2020, and that the payments made after that date could not revive the barred claim. The court distinguished Western Coal, noting that it involved a new, signed agreement rather than check annotations. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. The court held that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and concluded that the check annotations did not constitute a sufficient written acknowledgment to create a new contract or revive the cause of action. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed, and costs were awarded to the defendant. View "Dawadi v. Adhikari" on Justia Law

Child v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America

2026-05-11T07:30:50-08:00

After suffering a car accident more than 40 years ago, the plaintiff lost the use of her arms and legs and required substantial assistance with daily activities. She worked for a regional education agency for over three decades, during which her employer began offering group long-term care insurance through the defendant insurer. The policy was “guaranteed issue,” so preexisting conditions were not a barrier to enrollment, but it contained an “existing-loss provision” excluding coverage for losses of daily living activities that already existed on the policy’s effective date. The plaintiff, after consulting with both agency specialists and the insurer—without fully disclosing her limitations—enrolled in the policy and paid premiums for nearly 20 years. Upon retiring, she filed a claim for benefits based on her longstanding impairments. Her claim was denied, as her limitations predated the policy’s effective date. The plaintiff sued in state court, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and bad faith. After the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, the defendant moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer and dismissed the case, finding that the policy’s plain language did not cover losses existing before coverage began and that the plaintiff could not rely on the reasonable-expectations doctrine or statutory protections for preexisting conditions to obtain coverage. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Eighth Circuit held that under the unambiguous terms of the policy and applicable Iowa law, the insurer was not required to cover losses that predated the effective date of coverage. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments based on Iowa statutes, administrative rules, and the reasonable-expectations doctrine, as well as her claims for bad faith and fraudulent misrepresentation, concluding that the insurer had a reasonable basis for denial. View "Child v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America" on Justia Law

MV TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. GDS TRANSPORT, LLC

2026-05-08T06:19:03-08:00

A company providing paratransit and microtransit services under contract with a regional public transportation authority subcontracted another company to supply vehicles and drivers. After several months, the subcontractor terminated the agreement and brought suit against the transportation company and the authority, asserting claims including breach of contract, quantum meruit, tortious interference, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The fraud claim centered on alleged false representations made to induce the subcontract. The trial court (Texas District Court) ruled on a motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, which allows dismissal if pleadings show no legal or factual basis for relief. The court dismissed the fraud and other tort claims against all defendants, as well as the breach of contract claim against the transportation authority and its primary contractor. It limited potential contract damages as to the contractor’s subsidiary and severed and abated remaining claims. The subcontractor appealed the dismissal of its claims against the main transportation company. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed in part, finding that the breach of contract and fraud claims against the main transportation company had a basis in law and that its statutory immunity under Texas Transportation Code § 452.056(d) was not conclusively established. The Supreme Court of Texas, reviewing only the fraud claim, held that the statutory immunity did apply. Because the pleadings showed the transportation company was contractually performing the authority’s function, and the authority itself would be immune from a fraud claim (an intentional tort), the company was likewise immune from liability for fraud. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the fraud claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on any remaining claims. View "MV TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. GDS TRANSPORT, LLC" on Justia Law

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. CITY OF CORSICANA AND NAVARRO COUNTY

2026-05-08T06:19:02-08:00

The case centers on an economic development agreement between a city and county in Texas and a private foundation, aimed at fostering the construction of a retail shopping center anchored by a Gander Mountain store. The city and county pledged portions of future sales-tax revenues to the foundation, which used the funds to secure a construction loan for the facility. The agreements required that the tax proceeds be used solely to repay the construction debt. Gander Mountain operated for eleven years before closing its store, but the shopping center continued to generate significant economic activity and tax revenue, with the former anchor tenant’s space later occupied by another retailer. After Gander Mountain’s closure in 2015, the city and county ceased payments, claiming the public purpose of the grants had ended. They sought declaratory relief in the District Court of Navarro County, arguing that continued payments would be unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clauses. The district court granted summary judgment to the city and county, ruling that the closure ended the public purpose and that the agreements lacked sufficient controls to ensure public purposes were met. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth District of Texas affirmed, holding that the economic development grants remained subject to the Gift Clauses and that the agreements failed to satisfy their requirements. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that economic-development grants authorized by article III, section 52-a of the Texas Constitution remain subject to the Gift Clauses. The Court determined that the lower courts erred by focusing narrowly on the operation of a specific store rather than the broader public purpose of economic development. It held that the agreements likely satisfied the constitutional requirements of public purpose, consideration, and adequate controls, and that summary judgment was improper. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the lower courts’ judgments and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. CITY OF CORSICANA AND NAVARRO COUNTY" on Justia Law

Martin v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Cleveland

2026-05-07T12:30:34-08:00

The plaintiff worked as a Project Director and participated in her employer’s long-term disability (LTD) plan, which was administered by Matrix Absence Management on behalf of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. After taking leave due to ongoing symptoms from long-haul COVID-19, the plaintiff applied for LTD benefits under the plan, which required proof of total disability. Matrix reviewed the medical evidence—including opinions from both treating and independent physicians—and denied her claim, concluding that as of her leave date, she was not totally disabled under the plan’s terms. The plaintiff appealed this denial, but Matrix upheld its decision after additional review. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio heard the plaintiff’s subsequent lawsuit against the Bank, Matrix, and the plan, asserting breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court denied the plaintiff’s requests for discovery beyond the administrative record and granted judgment on the administrative record in favor of the defendants. The court found that New York contract law, not ERISA, applied, and review was limited to whether Matrix’s decision was arbitrary, made in bad faith, or the result of fraud, given the plan’s broad delegation of discretionary authority to Matrix. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court correctly applied New York contract law and the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in denying discovery beyond the administrative record, as the plaintiff did not establish a colorable claim of conflict of interest or procedural defect. The Sixth Circuit concluded that Matrix’s denial had a reasonable basis in the administrative record and thus was not arbitrary or capricious. The judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Martin v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Cleveland" on Justia Law

Heaven v. Weber

2026-05-05T14:34:32-08:00

The case involves a dispute between an individual and two defendants whom he sued for breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. The plaintiff then filed multiple post-trial and post-judgment motions, alleging, among other things, that new evidence showed interference in the case by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All of these motions were denied. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed several motions seeking to disqualify the presiding judge for alleged bias and misconduct, each of which was also denied. Following these filings, the trial court judge issued an order declaring the plaintiff a vexatious litigant and enjoining him from filing further pleadings without first obtaining the court’s permission. The plaintiff appealed, raising issues about the vexatious litigant order, the denial of his motions to disqualify the judge, and the completeness of the record on appeal. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the trial court abused its discretion by declaring the plaintiff a vexatious litigant and issuing a pre-filing order without first providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court vacated the vexatious litigant order and remanded for further proceedings, requiring the trial court to allow the plaintiff a chance to be heard and then, if warranted, issue a substantive order with adequate analysis. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motions for judicial disqualification, finding the motions procedurally deficient, and concluded that the trial court transmitted a sufficient record on appeal. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Heaven v. Weber" on Justia Law

Delshah 60 Ninth, LLC v. Free People of PA LLC

2026-05-05T10:00:11-08:00

A dispute arose between a commercial landlord and tenant after government emergency orders during the COVID-19 pandemic required non-essential businesses in New York City to close. The tenant, operating a retail clothing store in Manhattan, stopped paying rent, arguing that the lease excused rent payments when government actions prevented it from operating its business. The landlord disagreed, terminated the lease for nonpayment, and sought damages for breach of contract. The tenant vacated the premises and counterclaimed, alleging the landlord wrongfully terminated the lease and wrongfully kept two payments made after termination. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the landlord, finding that the government’s orders did not constitute a “taking” under the lease because the tenant was not fully deprived of the use or occupancy of the premises. The district court also rejected the tenant’s counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, holding that the notice-and-cure provision applied and that the unjust enrichment claim was duplicative. The court awarded damages to the landlord, though the landlord cross-appealed, asserting the award was insufficient. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court misinterpreted the lease’s takings provision, which excused the tenant from paying rent when it was unable to operate its business due to government orders. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for the landlord on its breach of contract claim and concluded the tenant was entitled to summary judgment on both its own breach of contract counterclaim and its claim that the landlord improperly terminated the lease. The court further vacated the judgment on the unjust enrichment counterclaim and remanded for further proceedings. The landlord’s cross-appeal on damages was dismissed as moot. View "Delshah 60 Ninth, LLC v. Free People of PA LLC" on Justia Law

Rider v. Oxy USA

2026-05-05T09:07:17-08:00

Several individuals who own royalty interests in the Kansas Hugoton Gas Field brought a putative class action against two energy companies. Their claims are based on an alleged breach of a 2008 class action settlement agreement, which had resolved earlier disputes about underpayment of royalties by one of the companies. The 2008 settlement required limits on certain deductions from royalty payments and specified that its terms would bind successors, assigns, and related entities. In 2014, one defendant acquired assets from the other and continued making royalty payments. Plaintiffs allege the acquiring company violated the settlement by taking improper deductions after the acquisition. The plaintiffs initially sought to enforce the settlement in Kansas state court, but the District Court of Stevens County determined the judgment had become dormant and unenforceable. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling, and while the appeal was pending, they filed this federal class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss but later denied class certification. The district court found that the proposed class was not ascertainable because identifying class members would require individualized title review and that other Rule 23 requirements were not satisfied. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court clarified that, under its recent precedent, class ascertainability does not require administrative feasibility—only an objectively and clearly defined class. The court found the proposed class ascertainable, that common questions predominated, and that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23 requirements. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of class certification and remanded with instructions to certify the putative class. View "Rider v. Oxy USA" on Justia Law

PPG Holdco, LLC v. RAC PPG Buyer LLC

2026-05-04T11:03:04-08:00

The dispute arose from a stock purchase transaction in which RAC PPG Buyer LLC (the buyer) acquired all issued and outstanding shares of PPG Blocker, Inc. and its subsidiaries from PPG Holdco, LLC (the seller) under a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated August 15, 2024. The company at issue operated in contract food manufacturing and packaging. After closing, the buyer alleged that the seller had intentionally concealed significant labor and employee relations problems, including I-9 record deficiencies, union organizing activity, untimely wage payments, improper timekeeping practices, and unresolved sexual harassment complaints, all of which were not disclosed prior to the transaction. Following the closing, the buyer refused to pay the remaining purchase price and to release escrowed funds, citing alleged breaches of representations and warranties. The seller brought suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the buyer counterclaimed, asserting fraud and breach of contract claims related to the SPA and the seller’s pre-closing conduct. Previously, the buyer filed counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud. The seller moved to dismiss these counterclaims and also sought judgment on the pleadings for its own claims. The Delaware Court of Chancery considered the SPA’s provisions, including anti-reliance clauses, non-survival clauses, and the definition of “Actual Fraud.” The court found that the breach of contract claim and the fraud claim related to the Pre-Closing Statement were barred by the SPA’s provisions. However, the fraud counterclaim based on misrepresentations and warranties within the SPA itself survived, because the buyer adequately alleged that the seller had actual knowledge of the company’s misrepresentations. The Delaware Court of Chancery held that the SPA barred breach of contract and extra-contractual fraud claims, but allowed the fraud claim based on intentional misrepresentation of contractual representations and warranties to proceed. The court denied judgment on the pleadings due to the surviving fraud claim, which sought rescission and created material factual disputes. The request for attorneys’ fees was also denied as premature. View "PPG Holdco, LLC v. RAC PPG Buyer LLC" on Justia Law

ColonialWebb Contractors Company v. Hill Phoenix, Inc.

2026-05-04T10:30:28-08:00

This case concerns a dispute between two companies regarding contracts for the purchase of industrial refrigeration equipment. In late 2020, ColonialWebb Contractors Company placed purchase orders with Hill Phoenix, Inc. for projects in Colorado and Michigan. Dissatisfied with the equipment received, ColonialWebb filed two nearly identical breach of contract lawsuits against Hill Phoenix in a Virginia state court. The complaints were filed on the same day and assigned consecutive docket numbers. However, ColonialWebb did not promptly serve either complaint. When Hill Phoenix eventually learned of both cases, it mistakenly believed they were duplicate filings of the same action due to receiving two copies of what appeared to be the same complaint, differing only in docket number. Believing only one action existed, Hill Phoenix filed a single notice of removal to federal court, referencing both cases and requesting consolidation. The clerk’s office for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia opened a single federal case, effectively consolidating the two actions. ColonialWebb responded with a motion to remand, arguing that a forum selection clause required the disputes to be litigated exclusively in Virginia state court. While ColonialWebb mentioned improper consolidation, its remand motion was based solely on the forum selection clause. The district court, acting on its own initiative, remanded the matter to state court, finding that the consolidation of the state cases was improper but not addressing the merits of the forum selection clause argument. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s remand order. It held that the district court erred by remanding the case sua sponte for a procedural defect that was not raised by timely motion, as required by statute. The Fourth Circuit reversed the remand order and returned the matter to the district court for further proceedings. View "ColonialWebb Contractors Company v. Hill Phoenix, Inc." on Justia Law

In Re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation

2026-05-04T07:00:11-08:00

A group of branded gasoline retailers, known as the Old Jericho Plaintiffs, operated gas stations and accepted Visa and Mastercard payment cards during a specified period. Following a long-running federal antitrust class action alleging that Visa and Mastercard imposed unlawfully high interchange fees, a $5.6 billion settlement was reached in 2019 with a class defined as all entities accepting Visa- or Mastercard-branded cards in the United States from January 1, 2004, to January 24, 2019. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs did not opt out of this settlement. However, after the opt-out period ended, they filed a separate class action asserting state-law antitrust claims for damages based on the same alleged conduct, contending that their suppliers were the direct payors of the fees and thus should be the proper class members. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were members of the original settlement class and that the settlement agreement barred their new claims. The district court found the term “accepted” in the settlement ambiguous but, after reviewing extrinsic evidence—such as contracts and how transactions were conducted—concluded that the retailers themselves, not their suppliers, “accepted” payment cards within the meaning of the agreement. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that its prior decision in Fikes Wholesale, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. did not require class membership to be determined solely by identifying the “direct payor.” The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual determination that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were intended to be class members. Additionally, it held that the claims brought by these plaintiffs were validly released in the settlement because they rested on the same factual predicate as the released claims and the plaintiffs had been adequately represented. View "In Re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Benchmark Investments LLC v. Pacer Advisors, Inc.

2026-04-30T10:32:37-08:00

Benchmark Investments, LLC, an ETF sponsor, entered into an agreement with Pacer Advisors, Inc. for investment advisory and related services under a “white label” structure. The contract allowed Benchmark to terminate the agreement without cause at the end of the contract term upon written notice, and also provided a mechanism for Benchmark to give notice of its intent to terminate and simultaneously propose a reorganization of the funds, subject to approval by a third-party trust board. Benchmark sent emails to Pacer indicating its intent to terminate after the contract term and stated its intention to propose a reorganization. The reorganization proposal was ultimately not approved by the trust board, and Pacer then told Benchmark it “accepted” the termination, treating Benchmark’s notice of intent as an actual termination, which Benchmark disputed. The Superior Court of the State of Delaware concluded that Benchmark’s emails effectively constituted actual termination of the agreement. The court reasoned that the distinction between a notice of intent to terminate and a written notice of termination was not meaningful under the contract, and that the process for proposing a reorganization required a prior or simultaneous actual termination notice. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware found the contract unambiguously allowed Benchmark to provide a notice of intent to terminate and propose a reorganization without causing a present termination of the agreement. The Supreme Court explained that only a formal written notice under the relevant contract section could effectuate termination, and that Benchmark’s actions did not amount to such notice. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of Benchmark. View "Benchmark Investments LLC v. Pacer Advisors, Inc." on Justia Law

Vargas v. RRA CP Opportunity Tr. 1

2026-04-30T07:13:03-08:00

A homeowner obtained a home equity line of credit (HELOC) secured by a deed of trust, subsequently defaulted, and faced nonjudicial foreclosure initiated by a party claiming to be the beneficiary. The loan servicer, acting on behalf of the claimed beneficiary, executed a declaration asserting that the beneficiary was the “holder” of the HELOC agreement, as required by Washington’s Deed of Trust Act (DTA) for nonjudicial foreclosure. The homeowner challenged the foreclosure in federal court, arguing that a HELOC is not a negotiable instrument and, therefore, the entity seeking foreclosure could not be its “holder” as contemplated by the DTA. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the homeowner’s quiet title and some statutory claims were dismissed, but other claims were allowed to proceed. Recognizing that state law questions were central and unresolved, the district court certified two questions to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington: (1) whether a typical HELOC is a negotiable instrument under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and (2) whether a party claiming to be a beneficiary can satisfy the DTA’s “holder” requirement by declaring it holds a HELOC agreement. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that a HELOC agreement, as described, is not a negotiable instrument because it does not contain an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount of money. The court further held that under the DTA, “holder” means the holder of a negotiable instrument as defined by Article 3 of the UCC. Therefore, a party cannot fulfill the DTA’s proof-of-beneficiary requirement for nonjudicial foreclosure simply by declaring it is the holder of a nonnegotiable HELOC agreement. This does not preclude judicial remedies, but nonjudicial foreclosure is unavailable in such circumstances. View "Vargas v. RRA CP Opportunity Tr. 1" on Justia Law

Clearfield County v. Transystems Corp.

2026-04-30T05:12:30-08:00

A county entered into a contract in the late 1970s with various firms for the construction of a new jail, which was completed in 1981. Decades later, during a renovation in 2021, a construction defect was discovered: the original roof was not properly attached to the masonry walls. The county paid for repairs and, in 2023, sued the original architect, the general contractor, and the masonry subcontractor for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation or nondisclosure, and breach of contract. Each defendant raised the statute of repose in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536 as a defense, arguing the claims were filed more than 12 years after completion of the jail. The Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County sustained the defendants’ preliminary objections, finding the statute of repose applied because the jail was completed in 1981, and the defendants had performed the qualifying construction services. The court further held that the doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi, which sometimes allows government entities to avoid statutes of limitations, did not apply to the statute of repose. The county appealed. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, assuming for argument's sake that nullum tempus could apply to statutes of repose, but concluding the county failed to meet the requirements for invoking the doctrine because constructing the jail was not enforcing an obligation imposed by law. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that nullum tempus cannot preclude the application of the Section 5536 statute of repose. The court concluded the statute of repose is a legislative judgment eliminating liability for construction professionals after 12 years, and its purpose cannot be undermined by the common law doctrine of nullum tempus. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order upholding dismissal of the complaint. View "Clearfield County v. Transystems Corp." on Justia Law

AVL Test Systems v. Hensel Phelps Construction

2026-04-28T12:08:31-08:00

The dispute arose from a contract in which a company specializing in vehicle emissions testing equipment agreed to supply and install its products in a facility being constructed by a general contractor for a state agency. After receiving substantial payments, the equipment supplier sought additional compensation through arbitration. The general contractor defended by arguing that the supplier was not properly licensed as required by California’s Contractors State Licensing Law (CSLL), and thus could not recover payment. The supplier then initiated a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that it was exempt from the CSLL’s licensing requirements because its equipment did not become a “fixed part of the structure,” referencing an exemption in the law. The Superior Court of Riverside County reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The general contractor argued the exemption did not apply because the equipment became permanently affixed to the building, and the supplier had performed work before obtaining a license. The supplier contended its products were portable and not intended to be permanent fixtures, and that it acted as an equipment installer exempt under the law. The superior court granted summary judgment for the general contractor, finding that the evidence showed the equipment did become a fixed part of the structure and thus the supplier needed a contractor’s license. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, found the lower court erred by deciding as a matter of law that the exemption did not apply. The appellate court held that whether the equipment became a fixed part of the structure is a factual question, not one suitable for summary judgment on the record before it. Because there was conflicting evidence—including expert declarations—on this issue, the trial court should have permitted the factual dispute to be resolved by a trier of fact. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "AVL Test Systems v. Hensel Phelps Construction" on Justia Law

CHANDLER v. ROOSEVELT

2026-04-28T09:00:59-08:00

The case involves a dispute between an Arizona municipal corporation and a water conservation district, both of which are public entities. In 2002, the two parties entered into a long-term agreement for the sale and delivery of water, with specific provisions regarding termination. In 2018, the water district notified the city that it considered the agreement terminated and ceased performance, while the city maintained that the contract remained valid and that the district’s actions constituted breach and anticipatory breach. Over the subsequent years, the city repeatedly requested water delivery under the agreement, and the district consistently refused, reiterating its position that the agreement was no longer in effect. In 2022, after further unsuccessful attempts to enforce the contract, the city formally notified the district of a breach and then initiated legal action seeking specific performance and declaratory relief. The Superior Court in Maricopa County denied the district’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The court found the city’s claims were subject to the one-year limitation period under A.R.S. § 12-821 but concluded the claims were timely because each refusal to deliver water constituted a new breach. The court also declared the agreement valid and enforceable. The district appealed, and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute of limitations in § 12-821 applied to the city’s claims and thus barred them. The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the effect of § 12-821 on the common law nullum tempus doctrine, which exempts the state from statutes of limitation when acting as plaintiff. The Court held that § 12-821 does not expressly abrogate the nullum tempus doctrine for lawsuits between public entities and that the one-year limitation does not apply in such cases. Accordingly, the Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion, reversed the superior court’s judgment as to timeliness, and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment for the city, declaring the agreement valid and enforceable. View "CHANDLER v. ROOSEVELT" on Justia Law

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

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

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

Hutchinson v. Gomez

2026-04-23T07:38:17-08:00

A married couple entered into a premarital agreement prior to their 2015 wedding. The agreement stated that each party’s property, including business interests owned prior to or acquired during the marriage, would remain separate and nonmarital. It also included a provision anticipating that the husband would purchase a condominium, which would become the marital home and, in the event of divorce, its value would be split equally. During the marriage, the couple resided in the condominium, but it remained owned by the husband’s mother, and the husband never purchased it. The couple separated in 2020, and the husband filed for divorce in 2021. Throughout the marriage, the husband acquired and managed various business interests, while both parties maintained separate finances. The Maine District Court in Portland held several hearings to resolve issues related to spousal support, discovery sanctions, and the interpretation and validity of the premarital agreement. The parties stipulated that the agreement was valid but disputed its scope, particularly regarding business interests and the condominium provision. The District Court found that the wife had waived any claim to the husband’s business interests and any increase in their value, and that the agreement did not require the husband to purchase the condominium. The court also determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the wife’s breach-of-contract claim regarding the condominium and awarded her a portion of her requested attorney fees. Upon appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the District Court’s judgment in part. It held that the wife had clearly waived any claim to the husband’s business interests and their increases in value. However, the Supreme Judicial Court determined that the lower court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction over the breach-of-contract claim concerning the condominium and in interpreting the agreement as not requiring its purchase. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Hutchinson v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Vivos Xpoint v. Sindorf

2026-04-23T07:22:10-08:00

A California company repurposed decommissioned military bunkers in South Dakota as survival shelters, offering them for sale or long-term lease. In 2020, an individual entered into a 99-year lease with the company for one of these bunkers, paying $35,000 upfront. The lease agreement incorporated a set of community rules, which the company reserved the right to modify with 30 days’ written notice. In 2021, the company amended the rules to expressly prohibit the brandishing of firearms except in designated areas. In 2023, the lessee was alleged to have brandished a firearm during an altercation, prompting the company to issue notices to vacate and, ultimately, to file a forcible entry and detainer action when the lessee secured the bunker but refused to return possession. The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Fall River County granted summary judgment in favor of the lessee. The court reasoned that the lease was illusory because the company could unilaterally modify the rules at any time, leaving the lessee with no recourse. The court concluded that this rendered the entire lease void and unenforceable, thereby preventing the company from evicting the lessee under the lease. The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment order. The Supreme Court held that the lease agreement was supported by valid consideration and was not illusory merely because the company retained the right to modify community rules, as such modifications were constrained by requirements of reasonableness and good faith. The Court ruled that the ability to modify rules, when exercised subject to notice and implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, does not make the underlying contract unenforceable. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Vivos Xpoint v. Sindorf" on Justia Law

Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

2026-04-22T22:15:06-08:00

A former Army specialist was seriously injured in a suicide bombing at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan. The attack was carried out by Ahmad Nayeb, a Taliban operative hired by Fluor Corporation, a military contractor, as part of a program encouraging the hiring of Afghan nationals. The Army’s investigation concluded that Fluor was primarily responsible due to negligent supervision and failure to enforce proper security procedures, including allowing Nayeb to check out tools used in the bombing and to move about the base unsupervised. The plaintiff sued Fluor in federal court in South Carolina, seeking damages under state law for negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, and negligent retention of Nayeb. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to Fluor, holding that state-law tort claims were preempted under Fourth Circuit precedent whenever they arose out of combatant activities in a wartime setting. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, adopting a broad “battlefield preemption” doctrine. It reasoned that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) combatant-activities exception, which preserves government immunity for claims arising out of military combatant activities, reflected an intent to bar all tort suits against contractors connected with those activities, regardless of whether the contractor followed or violated military instructions. The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case. The Court held that the Fourth Circuit erred in finding the state-law tort claims preempted where the federal government neither ordered nor authorized the challenged conduct. The Supreme Court clarified that neither the Constitution, federal statutes, nor its precedents support such broad preemption. Preemption applies only if the contractor was following government directives or if there is a significant conflict between federal interests and state law, which was not the case here. View "Hencely v. Fluor Corp." on Justia Law

Jones v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company

2026-04-22T06:16:35-08:00

After being injured in a car accident while riding in a vehicle insured by Progressive, the respondent received medical treatment from several providers. The total amount billed for her treatment was $27,786.17. However, as a Medicaid recipient, her providers agreed to accept $1,323.60—paid by Medicaid—as full satisfaction for her medical expenses. The respondent demanded payment of the full $10,000 policy limit under the "Medpay" provision of her Progressive auto insurance policy, but Progressive paid only the $1,323.60 Medicaid had paid, arguing that this was the only amount the respondent actually "incurred." The Circuit Court for Chester County denied Progressive’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and, after a bench trial, found for the respondent. The court determined the term "incurred" was ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of the insured, entitling the respondent to the full amount charged for her medical care. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the full amount billed constituted expenses "incurred," even though the providers accepted less due to Medicaid. The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted certiorari and reversed. It held that the term "expenses incurred" in the policy is unambiguous and means the amount for which the insured is legally obligated to pay. The Court determined the respondent incurred only the amount Medicaid paid, as she had no obligation to pay the providers more. Accordingly, Progressive was required to pay only $1,323.60, and not the higher amounts billed or the policy limit. The Court remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Progressive. View "Jones v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Masimo Corporation v. Kiani

2026-04-21T12:10:54-08:00

A former CEO of a Delaware corporation, who also founded and controlled the company, entered into a series of employment agreements and amendments with the company’s board. These agreements provided him with substantial severance benefits, including a large special payment of restricted stock units and cash, under specific termination conditions—such as his removal from board leadership or a change in board composition. The agreements also included a forum selection clause requiring that disputes “arising out of or relating to” the contract be litigated exclusively in the Superior Court of California. After an activist hedge fund succeeded in electing new directors and the CEO lost control, he resigned and claimed entitlement to the severance and special payment. He initiated litigation in California to enforce his rights under the agreement. Meanwhile, the company’s newly reconstituted board deemed the CEO terminated for cause and filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The company sought to invalidate the employment agreements, alleging they were the product of the CEO’s breaches of fiduciary duty and that their terms improperly entrenched his control and penalized stockholders. The company argued Delaware was the proper forum based on its bylaws and the nature of the claims. The Delaware Court of Chancery reviewed the case. The court held that, because of the recently enacted Section 122(18) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the forum selection clause in a governance agreement (such as this employment agreement with a controller/stockholder) is enforceable and can validly require internal affairs and fiduciary duty claims relating to the agreement to be litigated outside Delaware. The court found the agreement was covered by Section 122(18) and that all claims “arose out of or related to” the agreement. The court granted the CEO’s motion to dismiss, holding that venue was proper only in California. View "Masimo Corporation v. Kiani" on Justia Law

Lavina v. Florida Prepaid College Board

2026-04-21T10:34:34-08:00

Two individuals purchased Florida prepaid college tuition savings plans for their daughters in 2004 and 2006. The plans promised to cover tuition at Florida public colleges or transfer an equivalent amount to non-Florida colleges if the beneficiary chose to attend elsewhere. In 2007, the Florida Legislature authorized a new “tuition differential” fee, exempting holders of existing plans from paying that fee at Florida colleges. The Florida Prepaid College Board amended the plan contracts to specify that this new fee was not covered for out-of-state schools. Over a decade later, when both daughters chose to attend out-of-state colleges, the Board declined to transfer an amount equivalent to the tuition differential fee. The purchasers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against members of the Board, alleging that the Board’s refusal violated the Contracts and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Board from applying the statutory exemption and contract amendments to beneficiaries attending non-Florida schools. The Board moved to dismiss, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, reasoning the relief sought was prospective. However, the district court disagreed, ruling that the relief requested was essentially a demand for a refund, thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity because the relief sought would require specific performance of a contract with the state, which is not permitted under Ex parte Young and related Supreme Court precedent. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice, as the dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lavina v. Florida Prepaid College Board" on Justia Law

Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First Coast Chapter v. General Services Administration

2026-04-21T08:35:04-08:00

Two builders’ associations, whose members are largely non-union construction contractors, challenged a federal procurement mandate issued by executive order in February 2022. The order, issued by the President, presumptively requires all contractors and subcontractors on federal construction projects valued at $35 million or more to enter into project labor agreements with unions. The order allows for three specific exceptions if a senior agency official provides a written explanation. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued regulations implementing the order, and the Office of Management and Budget provided guidance. The associations argued that the mandate unfairly deprived their members of contracting opportunities and brought a facial challenge under several statutory and constitutional grounds, seeking to enjoin the mandate’s enforcement. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the associations were likely to succeed on their claim under the Competition in Contracting Act, since the government was not meaningfully applying the order’s exceptions, but concluded that the associations would not suffer irreparable harm because they could challenge individual procurements in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The district court did not consider irreparable harm as to the associations’ other claims. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, although for different reasons. The Eleventh Circuit held that the associations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial challenge under the Competition in Contracting Act, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. The court emphasized that the existence of written exceptions in the executive order precluded a facial invalidity finding, and that the government acted within its statutory and proprietary authority. The court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First Coast Chapter v. General Services Administration" on Justia Law