Contracts - Justia Case Law Summaries

WPX Energy Williston, LLC v. Jones

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

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

In re Estate of Mueller

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

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

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. v. US

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

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

Conger v. Clark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pennsylvania Insurance Co. v. Federal Express Corp.

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

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

HAVENS VS. DIST. CT.

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

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

Farooqui v. Silkwave Holdings Ltd.

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

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

Stallion Springs Medical Services v. Super. Ct.

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

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

Buchheim v. Anaya

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

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

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

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

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

County of Westchester v. Express Scripts

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

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

Trireme Energy Development v. RWE Renewables

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

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

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. STB

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

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

Jim Daws Trucking, LLC v. Daws, Inc.

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

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

Gomez-Echeverria v. Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC

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

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

Walker v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

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

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

T-MOBILE US, INC. v. KAIFI LLC

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

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

Srivastava v. BMW of North America

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

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

Stafford v. State

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

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

Rummans v. HSBC Bank

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

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

Ari Law v. Autonation.com

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

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

All Does v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP

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

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

West Series of Lockton Companies, LLC v. Kaufman

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

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

Bourdeau Bros., Inc. v. St. Pierre

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

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

West Development, LLC v. Town of W. Yellowstone

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

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

Buchheim v. Anaya

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

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

Dillinger's LLC v. CR-GTD, LLC

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

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

Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc.

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

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

Parkin v. Avis Rent a Car System LLC

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

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

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

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

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

Ban v. Manheim

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

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

Democracy Partners, LLC v. O'Keefe

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

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

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

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

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

Adsync Technologies, Inc. v. FAA

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

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

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

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

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

Western Mortgage v. Walker

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

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

Burleigh Cty v. Comstock Construction

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

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

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

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

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

Merchants Bank of Indiana v. Craik

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

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

Nicholls v. Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc.

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

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

McNain Holdings v. Wilderness Preserve

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

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

Village of Schaumburg v Permasteelisa North America

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

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

Quadvest v. San Jacinto River Auth

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

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

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

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

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

NexPoint v. Highland

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

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

AECOM Technical Services v. Flatiron | AECOM

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

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

Turpin v. Charlotte Latin Schools, Inc

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

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

SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. v. DOD

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

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

Ex parte State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

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

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

Huber v. Currie

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

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

Ferguson v Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc.

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

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

UMB Bank v. Bristol-Myers

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

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

LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Underwood Towers Ltd. Partnership

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

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

Cosel v. Wendt

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

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

Trimble v. Entrata, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

Sorum v. Sikorski

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

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

Becerra-Paez v. Syracuse University

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

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

Nasey v. Fell Holdings LLC

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

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

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

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

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

Gligorov v. Nation of Brunei

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

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

Coahoma County School District Board of Education v. Moore

2026-08-07T01:20:08-08:00

Daryl Moore was employed by the Coahoma County School District Board as an at-will assistant coach for the high school boys’ basketball team during the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years. He was paid $1,500 per year for his assistant coaching duties. Moore claimed that, at the request of the athletic director, he also performed the duties of the head coach for the junior-high boys’ basketball team but was never compensated for those additional responsibilities. He asserted that he was entitled to $5,000 for serving as the junior-high head coach over two years and brought suit against the Board for unjust enrichment and underpayment. The County Court of Coahoma County reviewed Moore’s claims after he filed suit for unpaid compensation. The Board moved for summary judgment, relying on Mississippi’s “minutes rule,” which requires that any binding contract with a public board be reflected in the board’s official minutes. The court denied summary judgment, finding that factual disputes remained regarding Moore’s coaching roles and compensation, and granted Moore additional time for discovery. The Board appealed, and the Supreme Court of Mississippi granted interlocutory review under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 5. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that Moore’s claims were barred by the minutes rule because there was no evidence in the Board’s minutes of any agreement to pay Moore as head coach or to increase his compensation. The Court found that, since the Board’s minutes did not reflect approval of additional pay for head-coaching duties, Moore could not recover under theories of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court reversed the county court’s decision and rendered summary judgment in favor of the Board. View "Coahoma County School District Board of Education v. Moore" on Justia Law

Employers Preferred Ins. Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.

2026-08-06T12:33:22-08:00

An insurance company issued a workers’ compensation policy to a business, which included provisions requiring the insured to provide payroll records for audit to determine the final premium. After the expiration of the initial policy, the insurer repeatedly requested payroll records from the insured over a period of more than three months, including sending a certified letter and cancellation notice. The insured did not respond to these requests. Subsequently, the insurer cancelled the renewed policy for failure to permit a payroll audit. When an employee of the insured was injured, the insurer denied the workers’ compensation claim on the basis that the policy had been cancelled. The dispute was brought before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) after arbitration. The arbitrator found that the policy and the relevant provisions of the Insurance Code did not clearly define what constitutes a failure to permit an audit, and concluded the cancellation notice was ineffective. The Board adopted the arbitrator’s recommendation and denied the insurer’s petition for reconsideration. The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the Board’s decision after issuing a writ of review. The appellate court held that the insured’s repeated failure to respond to audit requests constituted a failure to permit the audit as required by the policy. The court found that the policy language, read in light of applicable statutes and principles of contract interpretation, provided a reasonable basis for cancellation under these circumstances. The court annulled the Board’s order and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the insurer’s cancellation of the policy was effective and in compliance with the policy and statutory requirements. The insurer was awarded its costs. View "Employers Preferred Ins. Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

MAPP v. Floor and Decor

2026-08-06T09:30:53-08:00

A national flooring retailer contracted with a Louisiana-based construction management company for the construction of a retail store in Metairie, Louisiana. The relationship soured after the retailer terminated the agreement, allegedly due to delays. Shortly after termination, the construction company disputed that it had breached the contract and demanded payment for work performed. The retailer did not respond to the payment demand. The construction company filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under the Louisiana Private Works Act, seeking recovery for the work performed. The retailer moved to compel arbitration based on the agreement’s dispute resolution provision and also sought to transfer the case. The district court granted the transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and denied the motion to compel arbitration without prejudice. When the motion to compel arbitration was renewed in the new court, the district court denied it again, concluding the retailer had not followed the prerequisite steps outlined in the contract’s dispute resolution process. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit conducted de novo review. The appellate court determined that the arbitration clause in the contract, which gave the retailer sole discretion to elect arbitration, was a contract of adhesion under Louisiana law. Applying state contract principles and relevant Louisiana Supreme Court precedent, the court found that the lack of mutuality and the imbalance in bargaining power rendered the clause unenforceable. The court held that the arbitration provision was adhesionary and thus invalid, and affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. View "MAPP v. Floor and Decor" on Justia Law

Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

2026-08-06T09:02:53-08:00

The plaintiff leased a new vehicle from the defendant, but soon experienced persistent defects that could not be repaired despite multiple attempts. After the defendant failed to promptly replace the vehicle or provide restitution under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the plaintiff filed suit for breach of warranty, seeking damages and attorney fees. During litigation, the defendant made a statutory settlement offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, presenting two alternative sets of terms: a lump-sum payment or a reimbursement option requiring proof of damages, both accompanied by provisions for attorney fees and costs. In the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the jury awarded the plaintiff damages totaling $76,155.27, less than the lump-sum alternative in the defendant’s 998 offer. The trial court found the offer valid, imposed section 998’s cost-shifting penalty, limited plaintiff’s postoffer costs and attorney fees, and awarded defendant its postoffer costs. The plaintiff appealed, contesting the validity of the alternative-choice offer. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s awards, finding the lump-sum alternative sufficiently certain but deemed alternative-choice offers categorically invalid for cost-shifting purposes. The Supreme Court of California reviewed whether an offer under section 998 that presents two independent, alternative sets of terms for acceptance is categorically invalid due to uncertainty. The Court held that such an alternative-choice offer can be valid if it clearly presents the alternatives and at least one alternative is sufficiently certain to permit accurate valuation at the time the offer is made. If the judgment or award does not exceed the highest valued, valid alternative, cost-shifting under section 998 is permitted. The Court affirmed the trial court’s award, but rejected the Court of Appeal’s categorical prohibition of alternative-choice offers under section 998. View "Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC" on Justia Law

Ball v. Hubbard

2026-08-06T06:33:51-08:00

Michael Ball agreed to sell a residential property in Washington, D.C. to David Hubbard for $665,000. Hubbard failed to pay the sale price by the settlement date, after which Ball sold the property to another buyer. Ball then sued Hubbard for breach of contract, seeking damages representing the difference between the original contract price and the subsequent sale. The contract listed “221 35th LLC (To Be Formed)” as the buyer, but Hubbard signed and initialed the contract himself. The contract included an integration clause and a provision requiring Ball to comply with the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), granting Hubbard a right to void the contract if compliance was not achieved after specific notice and cure periods. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia first denied Hubbard’s motion to dismiss, finding the contract was enforceable and Hubbard could be personally liable as a promoter of the unformed LLC. Later, after Ball ceased participating in the proceedings, Hubbard filed an unopposed motion for summary judgment. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in Hubbard’s favor, concluding that the contract was unenforceable because two conditions precedent—the formation of the LLC and delivery of TOPA documents—were not met. The court also found Hubbard not personally liable as an agent of a disclosed principal and ordered Ball to return Hubbard’s $10,000 deposit and pay attorney’s fees. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case de novo. It held that neither the formation of the LLC nor the delivery of TOPA documents constituted conditions precedent to performance under the contract. Furthermore, the court concluded that Hubbard could potentially be held personally liable for breach, as the LLC was not formed and no evidence established that Ball agreed to bind only the LLC. The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ball v. Hubbard" on Justia Law

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

2026-08-06T06:33:50-08:00

The dispute involved four law firms that jointly represented Wye Oak Technology, Inc. in litigation against the Republic of Iraq. After a federal district court awarded Wye Oak over $120 million, Wye Oak’s board approved paying a forty-six percent contingency fee to the law firms, with the specific allocation among them to be determined later. The firms executed an Agreement Concerning Attorneys’ Fees (ACAF), which included an arbitration clause. Quinn, Racusin & Gazzola Chartered (QRG) later claimed that it was excluded from a prior side agreement between two other firms and alleged it was pressured into accepting the arbitration provision under duress. Following disputes over fee allocation and related tort claims, Pavich Law Group and Whiteford, Taylor & Preston initiated arbitration. The arbitrator awarded QRG zero percent of the contingency fee, while the other firms received varying portions. QRG challenged the award in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, arguing that the ACAF was invalid due to fraudulent inducement and duress, and that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority by ruling on issues outside the scope of the arbitration clause. The Superior Court rejected QRG’s arguments, determined that the arbitration clause was broad enough to cover the disputes, and confirmed the arbitrator’s award. On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Court held that QRG failed to demonstrate fraudulent inducement or duress regarding the agreement to arbitrate. It also found that the arbitrator acted within the scope of the ACAF’s arbitration clause, which covered both fee allocation and related tort claims. The Court further concluded that the vacatur of the underlying federal judgment did not void the ACAF, as some monetization of the judgment had occurred. The judgment confirming the arbitration award was affirmed. View "Quinn, Racusin & Gazzola Chartered v. Pavich Law Group, P.C." on Justia Law

Chiaccheri v. Zurich American Insurance Company

2026-08-06T06:08:28-08:00

A man was injured while driving his employer’s vehicle, which was insured under a commercial policy issued by Zurich American Insurance Company. The policy had a general bodily injury liability limit of $2,000,000 but included an endorsement limiting underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage to $15,000 per person. The at-fault driver had a liability policy with a $100,000 limit. After settling with the at-fault driver’s insurer for $100,000, the injured employee sought UIM coverage from Zurich. Zurich denied the claim, stating that the at-fault driver’s coverage exceeded the policy’s UIM limit. The employee filed suit, requesting reformation of the policy to provide $2,000,000 in UIM coverage, arguing that the policy’s UIM limits violated New Jersey statutory requirements and public policy. The action was initially filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey but was removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. That court granted summary judgment in favor of Zurich, finding the policy did not violate the relevant statute or public policy. The plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which then certified two questions to the Supreme Court of New Jersey about the interpretation of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f). The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that, under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f), the maximum UIM coverage “available under the policy” for an employee is the limit actually selected for the named insured under the policy, not the general liability policy limit. The Court also held that endorsements limiting UIM coverage to less than the general liability limit do not violate the statute or public policy, provided employees and named insureds are afforded the same UIM limits and minimum statutory requirements are met. View "Chiaccheri v. Zurich American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Consolidated Chassis Management LLC v Northland Insurance Co.

2026-08-05T14:00:47-08:00

The case centers on a 2016 traffic accident in Will County, Illinois, involving a semi-tractor operated by Midvest Transport Corporation, pulling a chassis managed by two companies. The driver of the car involved sued multiple defendants: Midvest, its driver, and the chassis companies. All defendants were insured by Northland Insurance Company. Northland appointed separate counsel for its insureds, but the chassis companies (Consolidated) preferred their own attorneys and sought reimbursement from Northland for those legal expenses, also seeking statutory penalties under Illinois law. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Consolidated sued Northland for declaratory and compensatory relief, alleging breach of contract and seeking penalties under § 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code. The district court initially ruled for Northland, finding no conflict of interest that would entitle Consolidated to independent counsel at Northland's expense. On reconsideration, however, the court found a conflict existed, granted summary judgment for Consolidated on the breach of contract and declaratory relief claims, and awarded $115,000. The district court rejected Consolidated’s claim for penalties, finding Northland did not act vexatiously or unreasonably. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo. It held that Illinois law only creates a narrow exception to an insurer’s right to control the defense where a serious, actual conflict exists between the insurer and the insured. The court found no such conflict here, as Northland’s interests were not at odds with Consolidated’s, and any adversity between insured codefendants did not trigger the right to independent counsel. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of Consolidated on its breach of contract and declaratory relief claims, and affirmed the judgment in favor of Northland on the § 155 claim. View "Consolidated Chassis Management LLC v Northland Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Bayramov v. American Credit Acceptance

2026-08-05T10:30:38-08:00

The case concerns two individuals who owned a car loan business in Virginia. Their business, Total Auto Financing, LLC, borrowed significant sums from American Credit Acceptance, LLC, with the loans personally guaranteed by the owners. After a series of renewals and a final short-term extension with restrictive terms, Total Auto defaulted on its debt. Following the default, American Credit replaced Total Auto as the servicer of its loan portfolio with Peritus Portfolio Services II, LLC. The new servicer’s management coincided with a sharp decline in the value and performance of the loan portfolio. The business was eventually forced into bankruptcy, and its main asset was sold at auction for much less than its previous value, leaving the owners personally liable for a large deficiency due to their guarantees. After the bankruptcy filing, the owners, acting in their personal capacities, filed complaints against American Credit and the new servicer (and related parties), alleging a range of claims including breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, and others. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed both complaints, finding that the claims belonged to the LLC, not the individual owners. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia affirmed the dismissals. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the principle determining who owns a claim—whether the business or its equity holders—means that owners cannot personally sue for injuries suffered by the business, even if they are financially harmed as a result. The court concluded that all claims asserted were either direct claims belonging to the LLC or failed to allege a personal injury distinct from the LLC’s injury. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the individual owners could not bring these claims in their own names. View "Bayramov v. American Credit Acceptance" on Justia Law

Prospect Capital Management LP v. Stratera Holdings LLC

2026-08-04T09:00:11-08:00

This case involves a dispute among business partners regarding the calculation and distribution of administrative fees earned from the sale of shares in a jointly managed investment fund. Prospect Capital Management L.P. (“Prospect”) acted as the fund administrator, while Stratera Holdings, LLC (“Stratera”) and Destra Capital Managers LLC (“Destra”) were entitled to share in fees depending on how fund shares were issued, including through a dividend reinvestment program (“DRIP”). After a change in sub-wholesaler, ambiguity arose in the contract language about whether certain DRIP shares—specifically, those issued by Stratera’s predecessor, Provasi—should be included in fee calculations. Prospect excluded these shares, reducing the amount paid to Stratera and Destra. Stratera and Destra initiated arbitration under the contract’s dispute resolution clause. The arbitration panel’s initial “Interim Award” found that Prospect had breached the contract by excluding DRIP shares for which Destra served as sub-wholesaler, but the award’s language left unclear whether this ruling applied to DRIP shares issued earlier by Provasi. When the parties could not agree on the scope of the award, the panel issued a revised interim award clarifying that fees were owed for DRIP shares issued by both Provasi and Destra. Prospect then petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to vacate the revised award, arguing that the arbitrators had unlawfully revisited a final decision in violation of the functus officio doctrine. The District Court rejected this claim, finding that the ambiguity exception to functus officio permitted the arbitrators’ clarification. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The court held that the ambiguity exception to the functus officio doctrine applied because the interim award was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the panel acted within its authority in clarifying its award. View "Prospect Capital Management LP v. Stratera Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court

2026-08-04T08:32:28-08:00

A driver insured by a reciprocal insurance exchange rear-ended another individual while stopped at a red light, causing injuries. The injured party, represented by counsel, made a prelitigation offer to settle her bodily injury claim against the insured driver for the “total available policy limit of $100,000, or less,” requiring acceptance in writing by a specified date and a copy of the policy declarations. The insurer responded within the deadline, accepting the offer and providing the requested documentation, confirming the policy’s bodily injury liability limit was $15,000 per person. The injured party refused to execute the settlement documents and instead pursued litigation against the insured driver. The insurer then filed a separate action against the injured party for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and specific performance, resulting in consolidation of the two cases in the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. The insurer moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication on its declaratory relief claim, arguing that a binding settlement agreement had been formed when it accepted the settlement offer according to its terms. The Superior Court denied this motion. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case on a petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court held that the insurer’s timely acceptance of the offer, along with provision of the policy declarations, satisfied all conditions of the injured party’s settlement demand and created a binding settlement agreement. The court rejected arguments that the settlement was contingent on an asset declaration or that subsequent events nullified the agreement. The appellate court granted the petition, directing the trial court to vacate its denial and instead grant summary adjudication for the insurer on the declaratory relief claim. The insurer was also awarded its costs. View "Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

FA ND Chev, LLC v. BAPTKO, Inc.

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

In 2018, BAPTKO, Inc., wholly owned by Robert Kupper, agreed to sell two car dealerships in North Dakota to Foundation Automotive Corp. The agreement included provisions regarding inventory management prior to closing, contingent earnout payments based on dealership performance, and an attorney’s fees clause for prevailing parties in disputes. Foundation Automotive Corp. later assigned its interests to two LLCs connected to each dealership. After the sale, relations deteriorated: the LLCs sued Kupper and related entities for breach of non-compete and tortious interference, while BAPTKO counterclaimed for unpaid earnout payments, asserting the performance targets had been met. The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota consolidated the actions. It granted partial summary judgment for the Kupper parties, holding that the Foundation parties were obligated to make the earnout payments. The district court denied summary judgment on the amount of damages, finding factual disputes. The Foundation parties conceded nonpayment but argued they were excused due to BAPTKO’s alleged prior breaches, particularly regarding inventory management. The district court rejected this argument, determining that any such breaches did not excuse performance but might affect the damages offset. At trial, the jury found BAPTKO had not breached the agreement. The district court also awarded attorney’s fees to BAPTKO, including amounts spent defending Kupper personally, and denied the Foundation parties’ post-trial motions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that the district court properly granted partial summary judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could find BAPTKO’s alleged breaches defeated the object of the agreement. The appellate court also held that limitations on expert testimony and jury instructions were not abuses of discretion, and that the attorney’s fee award, including amounts for Kupper’s defense, was supported by the agreement and not an abuse of discretion. View "FA ND Chev, LLC v. BAPTKO, Inc." on Justia Law

Penquis C.A.P., Inc. v. Department of Administrative and Financial Services

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

The Maine Department of Health and Human Services conducted a competitive bidding process in 2023 to award contracts for medical nonemergency transportation services for MaineCare and Children’s Health Insurance Program recipients. Penquis C.A.P., Inc., previously the incumbent provider for two regions, submitted bids for four regions but lost to ModivCare Solutions, LLC, which received the highest scores and was awarded contracts for all eight transit regions. Penquis CAP challenged the awards for four regions, asserting irregularities in the evaluation process and seeking access to additional DHHS records through Freedom of Access Act requests. Penquis CAP first pursued administrative appeals before a Department of Administrative and Financial Services (DAFS) appeal committee, which held a hearing and ultimately validated the contract awards to ModivCare. Penquis CAP then sought judicial review in the Superior Court (Penobscot County), which was transferred to the Business and Consumer Docket. After briefing and oral argument, the Business and Consumer Docket affirmed the appeal committee’s decision, finding no legal or procedural error in the bidding and award process. Penquis CAP subsequently appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which stayed the contract awards pending appeal. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the administrative record for errors of law, unsupported factual findings, or abuse of discretion. The Court held that Penquis CAP was not entitled under statute or the Administrative Procedure Act to delay the hearing until all FOAA requests were fulfilled, nor to obtain evidence beyond what it already possessed. The Court found no clear and convincing evidence justifying invalidation of the contract awards, and affirmed the judgment, lifting the stay on the awards. View "Penquis C.A.P., Inc. v. Department of Administrative and Financial Services" on Justia Law

Fox v DuPage Township

2026-07-31T12:00:46-08:00

Two long-term employees of a township senior center lost their jobs when a newly elected board, led by a candidate from the opposing political party, reorganized the center's leadership structure. The plaintiffs, both Republicans, had campaigned for the losing Republican candidate in the local election. After the incoming Democratic supervisor and board took office, they voted to eliminate the plaintiffs' positions as part of a broader reorganization, creating new roles and appointing others, including one individual who had also supported the Republican candidate. After their terminations, the plaintiffs filed suit in Illinois state court, naming the township and certain officials as defendants. They alleged, among other claims, that their First Amendment rights had been violated because their political activity was a motivating factor in their dismissals. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Following partial dismissal of claims, only the First Amendment retaliation and breach of implied contract claims against the township remained. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the township, finding plaintiffs had not shown that their political activity was a motivating factor in the terminations, nor had they rebutted the township's evidence of legitimate reasons for the reorganization. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had not produced sufficient evidence that their political activity motivated their terminations. The court found that the undisputed evidence showed neither the new supervisor nor the trustees knew of the plaintiffs' political involvement, and there were valid, non-retaliatory reasons for the personnel changes. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the township. View "Fox v DuPage Township" on Justia Law

Big Iron Auction Co. v. Harder Capital

2026-07-31T05:07:33-08:00

A Nebraska auction company and its former independent sales representative (ISR) entered into a written agreement containing restrictive covenants, including a noncompete clause, and an arbitration provision governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. The ISR terminated the relationship and began working for a competitor, allegedly violating the noncompete clause. The auction company sued for breach of contract, injunctive relief, and tortious interference, seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the ISR’s competitive activities. The District Court for Hall County compelled arbitration for the breach of contract and tortious interference claims but retained jurisdiction to decide the request for injunctive relief, ultimately granting a temporary injunction against the ISR. While the arbitration was pending, the ISR sought to dissolve the injunction and later moved for damages, costs, and attorney fees under Nebraska’s injunction undertaking statute after the arbitrator ruled the restrictive covenants unenforceable and awarded certain damages to the ISR. The arbitrator also found that additional damages based on the invalidation of the restrictive covenants were speculative and not recoverable. The District Court confirmed the arbitral award and denied the ISR’s subsequent motion for additional damages, reasoning that the arbitral award was preclusive as to all damages except attorney fees and expenses. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, due to the scope of the arbitration and the confirmation of the arbitrator’s award, the ISR could not recover further damages for the wrongful injunction that overlapped with claims already addressed in arbitration. However, the Court held that attorney fees and expenses related to resisting the issuance and seeking dissolution of the wrongful injunction were not foreclosed by the arbitration and should be awarded. The Supreme Court modified the lower court’s judgment to include $11,000 in such fees and otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Big Iron Auction Co. v. Harder Capital" on Justia Law

Arkeyo LLC v Saggezza, Inc.

2026-07-30T12:00:46-08:00

Two software development companies became involved in a dispute after a UK bank, Metro Bank PLC, hired one company, Arkeyo LLC, to create software for its coin-counting machines. Years later, as Arkeyo’s product became outdated, Metro Bank engaged Saggezza UK (a subsidiary of Saggezza, Inc.) to build replacement software. During development, Metro Bank provided Saggezza with an Arkeyo-operated touchscreen computer for reference. Arkeyo later alleged that Saggezza, Inc. infringed its copyrights and trade secrets, interfered with its contract and business relationship with Metro Bank, and converted Arkeyo’s property. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for Saggezza, Inc. on all claims, ruling that Arkeyo did not show Saggezza, Inc. was responsible for the alleged infringement or tortious acts—these, if they occurred, were committed by Saggezza UK, which was not a defendant. The district court also denied Arkeyo’s motions for sanctions and for reconsideration based on purportedly new evidence, and it awarded attorney’s fees to Saggezza, Inc. under federal statutes. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that Arkeyo’s copyright claims failed because there was no evidence of copying. The trade secret claims failed due to Arkeyo’s public disclosure of its software and the generic nature of the alleged secrets. The tortious interference claims were rejected because Saggezza’s competitive conduct was not “wrongful” under Illinois law, and the conversion claim failed since Arkeyo did not own or demand the property. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of sanctions, the denial of reconsideration, and the award of attorney’s fees. View "Arkeyo LLC v Saggezza, Inc." on Justia Law

Rolfsrud v. Continental Resources, Inc.

2026-07-30T07:31:05-08:00

The dispute centers on mineral rights to a property in McKenzie County, North Dakota. In 1938, the county acquired the property from Ellen Stole through foreclosure. In 1948, the county leased mineral rights—the “County Lease”—to Thomas Dorough, granting extraction rights in exchange for royalties. Hans Stole, Ellen’s son, redeemed the property in 1951, terminating the county’s ownership, and in 1954 ratified the County Lease as it pertained to his interest. There has been continuous mineral production since 1957. The Rolfsruds acquired the property in 2002 and entered new leases in 2007 and 2019—the latter (“Rolfsrud Lease”) granting higher royalties and naming Davis Exploration as lessee. Continental Resources operated under both leases, ultimately paying royalties at the lower County Lease rate. The Rolfsruds, joined by Davis Exploration, sued Continental and Petro-Hunt, asserting the Rolfsrud Lease controlled the property and raising several claims, including breach, quiet title, and declaratory relief. The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court relied on Ulrich v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation and Holbeck v. Hull from the North Dakota Supreme Court, finding the County Lease had priority. The court determined the Rolfsrud Lease was a “top lease” and quieted title in favor of Petro-Hunt’s interest under the County Lease. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. It held the County Lease became voidable—not void—upon redemption, and Hans’s ratification was valid as to the property he owned. The court further held continuous production under the County Lease sustained its force, despite no Pugh clause or lack of production on the specific property. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding the County Lease controls the subject property and the Rolfsrud Lease is a top lease. View "Rolfsrud v. Continental Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

Pinnacle Flooring Solutions v. Premier Homes Group

2026-07-30T04:37:44-08:00

Premier contracted Pinnacle to provide labor and materials for flooring in three homes, with each subcontract containing a clause allowing Premier to recover attorney fees in the event of Pinnacle’s default. Pinnacle sued Premier, alleging breach of contract for unpaid work, attaching the relevant subcontracts as exhibits. Premier counterclaimed, asserting that Pinnacle breached the subcontracts due to defective work, and requested attorney fees. Premier’s counterclaim referenced paragraphs from Pinnacle’s complaint, which incorporated the contracts, but did not explicitly state the basis for its attorney fees request. Pre-trial, Premier’s counsel informed Pinnacle’s counsel by email that the attorney fees request was based on Section 8(b) of the subcontracts, and the parties agreed to bifurcate the fees issue. The Circuit Court of Virginia found for Premier on its counterclaim regarding the breach, but denied Premier’s request for attorney fees, holding that Premier had not sufficiently identified the basis for its fee request in the counterclaim as required by Rule 3:25(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Premier appealed, and the Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed, concluding that the incorporation of the subcontracts and the attached exhibits were sufficient to put Pinnacle on notice of the contractual basis for the attorney fees claim. The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case de novo and held that Rule 3:25(b) is a pleading requirement, not merely a notice requirement. The court determined that Premier failed to affirmatively identify the basis for its attorney fees request in its counterclaim, and that mere incorporation by reference of the contracts was insufficient. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s denial of attorney fees to Premier, entering final judgment for Pinnacle on the attorney fees issue. View "Pinnacle Flooring Solutions v. Premier Homes Group" on Justia Law

Joliet Avionics, Inc. v City of Aurora

2026-07-29T12:30:58-08:00

A company that operated as a fixed-base operator at a municipal airport sued the city that owns and operates the airport. The company alleged that the city provided more favorable lease terms and selectively excused certain regulatory requirements for a competing operator, thereby disadvantaging the plaintiff. The city’s leases with the plaintiff and with its competitor differed in several respects, including rent abatement periods, required capital investments, and compliance with fuel storage and insurance requirements. The plaintiff argued that these differences, along with the city’s alleged failure to strictly enforce its own policies and federal grant assurances, constituted both an equal protection violation under a “class-of-one” theory and a breach of contract. The lawsuit was originally filed in Illinois state court, but the city removed it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff amended its complaint to drop claims against the competitor and proceeded against the city for breach of contract and equal protection violations. After discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for the city on both claims, finding that the class-of-one theory did not apply in the context of government contracting and that the contractual documents did not incorporate the policies or grant assurances as enforceable obligations. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that a class-of-one claim under the Equal Protection Clause is not available where a company challenges the terms of its lease or its competitor’s treatment under a different lease, absent any class-based discrimination. The court also held that the city’s policy and grant assurances were not incorporated into the plaintiff’s lease as enforceable contract terms, nor did the law provide a private right to enforce them in this context. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the city. View "Joliet Avionics, Inc. v City of Aurora" on Justia Law

Bonfiglioli USA, Inc. v. Midwest Engineered Components, Inc.

2026-07-29T12:30:40-08:00

A Kentucky-based manufacturer entered into a sales representative agreement with a Minnesota-based company to facilitate sales of industrial parts in several Midwestern states. The contract included a choice of law clause specifying Kentucky law would govern disputes and permitted the manufacturer to terminate the relationship at its discretion. However, a pre-contract email from Minnesota’s representatives revealed their intent to disregard the Kentucky choice of law, planning instead to invoke the Minnesota Termination of Sales Representatives Act (MTSRA), which restricts termination and invalidates conflicting contract terms. After several years, the manufacturer issued a termination notice in line with the contract. The Minnesota company, shortly before the contract’s automatic renewal, claimed protection under the MTSRA and demanded $165,000, threatening litigation. The manufacturer responded by filing suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, seeking declaratory judgment that Kentucky law governed and asserting fraudulent inducement based on the Minnesota company’s misrepresentation of its intent to abide by the choice of law provision. The district court held that Kentucky law applied, rendering the MTSRA inapplicable, and granted declaratory judgment for the manufacturer. It permitted the fraudulent inducement claim to proceed to a jury, which found the Minnesota company liable, awarding nominal actual damages and $280,000 in punitive damages. The court denied post-trial motions challenging the verdict, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and the punitive damages award. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Sixth Circuit held that Kentucky’s choice of law rules applied and that Kentucky had the most significant relationship to the contract, making the MTSRA inapplicable. The court upheld the jury’s finding of fraudulent inducement and found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s management of trial issues. The punitive damages award was found not to violate due process. View "Bonfiglioli USA, Inc. v. Midwest Engineered Components, Inc." on Justia Law

SERENITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL. V. SUN HUNG KAI STRATEGIC CAPITAL, LTD.

2026-07-29T08:01:15-08:00

Two investment entities entered into an agreement to sell a significant number of shares of a company to a purchaser. The seller was represented by a law firm as administrative agent and a broker as placement agent. Before the purchaser paid for the shares, it placed the transaction on hold. Despite this, the shares were mistakenly transferred to the purchaser. Multiple parties, including the administrative agent and broker, communicated about the error, and assurances were made that the transfer would be reversed. However, the reversal did not occur, and years later, the purchaser executed documents asserting ownership of the shares, which had notably increased in value. After demands for the return of the shares went unmet, the sellers filed suit. The shares were eventually returned, but their value had dropped. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California addressed claims brought by the sellers against the purchaser for conversion, among other causes of action. The purchaser, in turn, filed a third-party complaint seeking equitable indemnity and statutory contribution from the administrative agent and broker, alleging negligence in their handling of the transaction. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the third-party defendants on the equitable indemnity claim, reasoning that conversion is an intentional tort for which equitable indemnity is unavailable. The sellers and purchaser settled their claims, but the purchaser appealed the indemnity ruling. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. It held that, under California law, conversion is a strict liability tort, not an intentional tort requiring wrongful intent. Accordingly, a party liable for conversion may seek partial equitable indemnity from negligent joint tortfeasors. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the third-party defendants and remanded for further proceedings. View "SERENITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL. V. SUN HUNG KAI STRATEGIC CAPITAL, LTD." on Justia Law

Wildcat Coal v. Pacific Minerals

2026-07-28T08:02:04-08:00

The dispute centers on a coal mining lease in Wyoming originally executed in 1986 between Rock Springs Royalty Company and Bridger Coal Company. Under this lease, Bridger gained exclusive rights to mine coal from a specified area (the “Nine Mile Lease”) and was required to mine at least forty-five percent of the total coal from both the leased lands and “Adjoining Lands” every five years. Bridger was obligated to pay production royalties based on actual coal mined or, if it failed to meet the threshold, advance royalties based on projected production. For nearly thirty years, payments proceeded without issue. In 2020, Bridger, anticipating it would not meet the production threshold, paid an advance royalty, but Wildcat Coal LLC, which had succeeded as lessor, objected to the calculation, particularly the definition of “Adjoining Lands.” Bridger then withheld future royalties to recover what it claimed was an overpayment, prompting Wildcat to sue for breach of contract. The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming granted summary judgment for Wildcat, finding Bridger’s definition of “Adjoining Lands” was incorrect and that the term included both public and private lands as well as surface and underground mining. In a footnote, the district court sua sponte required Bridger to recalculate all royalties paid since 1986, although neither party had requested this. Bridger subsequently moved to correct the order, arguing that a thirty-six-month protest provision in the lease barred recalculation for earlier years, but the district court denied the motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Tenth Circuit held that the lease’s protest provision precluded recalculation of royalties for payments made before 2016, reversed the district court’s order requiring recalculation from 1986, affirmed the district court’s interpretation of “Adjoining Lands,” and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Wildcat Coal v. Pacific Minerals" on Justia Law

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg

2026-07-28T08:02:04-08:00

Between 2007 and 2011, Michael Jensen sexually abused multiple children in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Jensen’s parents and grandfather held significant positions within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Several of Jensen’s victims later sued the Church in West Virginia state court, alleging that the Church failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent Jensen’s abuse, including failing to report suspected abuse and failing to supervise or warn families about Jensen’s prior conduct. Before a verdict was reached, the Church settled with the remaining minor plaintiffs and their families. Following settlement, the Church sought coverage from two of its insurers, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company, for defense and settlement costs. Both insurers refused to pay, prompting the Church to file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, claiming breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith. The central issue became whether the underlying events constituted a single “occurrence” or multiple “occurrences” under the insurance policies, which would determine if the Church’s settlements met the policies’ retained limits required for coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurers, holding that each instance of abuse was a separate occurrence and, therefore, the retained limits were not met for any single occurrence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit held that the insurance policies’ definitions of “occurrence” were ambiguous and that the Church’s interpretation—that its alleged negligence constituted a single occurrence—was reasonable. Under Utah law, ambiguities in insurance contracts must be construed in favor of coverage. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg" on Justia Law

Neils Point, LLC v. Grady

2026-07-28T07:08:50-08:00

Neils Point, LLC owns a farm property in Harpswell, Maine, which it leased to Joseph and Laura Grady for agricultural use. The Gradys resided on the property and operated the farm under successive lease agreements, culminating in a 2017 extension titled “Commercial Agricultural Lease Agreement.” This lease specified that it was not a residential rental, set rent as a percentage of the farm’s net proceeds, and required arbitration for disputes. Neils Point alleged that the Gradys breached the lease by miscalculating rent, failing to pay on time, and not using the land as productive cropland. After Neils Point initiated arbitration in 2024, the Gradys responded by admitting the dispute was subject to arbitration and made their own arbitration demand under the lease. The arbitration hearing was held in July 2025, with both parties participating fully and without objection to either the process or the arbitrability of the dispute. The arbitrator found in favor of Neils Point, concluding that the Gradys breached the lease by improperly deducting expenses, failing to pay rent, and not maintaining the farm’s productivity. Damages were awarded, and the Gradys were ordered to vacate the property. The Cumberland County Superior Court confirmed the arbitration award and denied the Gradys’ subsequent motion to vacate, in which they argued for the first time that the arbitration provision was void because the lease was residential and the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the Gradys’ participation in arbitration without objection waived their right to challenge the validity of the arbitration clause or the arbitrator’s authority. The Court further held that the arbitrator’s construction of the lease was rational, and thus confirmation of the award was proper. View "Neils Point, LLC v. Grady" on Justia Law

Constance L. Beane v. Village on Great Brook, LLC

2026-07-28T07:08:50-08:00

A condominium resident entered into an agreement with the developer, the unit owners’ association, and other unit owners after concerns were raised about infrastructure and proposed changes to the condominium plan. The agreement required the developer to complete infrastructure work, pay a sum to the association, and convey a vacant lot to the association in exchange for the unit owners withdrawing their opposition to a planning board application. The agreement included a provision requiring planning board approval of the developer’s application by March 1, 2023, as a condition for the parties’ obligations. The planning board, however, did not approve the application until March 28, 2023. After learning that the lot was to be sold to a third party, the resident sued for specific performance of the agreement. The Superior Court (York County) granted the developer’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the failure to obtain planning board approval by the specified date was an unmet condition precedent, discharging all parties from their obligations under the agreement. The court also dismissed the resident’s claims for quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief on independent grounds. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether the timing requirement for planning board approval was necessarily a material condition precedent as a matter of law. The Court held that, in actions seeking equitable relief such as specific performance, whether time is of the essence is a factual question dependent on the intent of the parties and the circumstances. The Court concluded that the materiality of the March 1 deadline could not be determined solely from the pleadings, and that the complaint alleged facts which, if proven, could entitle the resident to relief. The Court vacated the dismissal of the breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Constance L. Beane v. Village on Great Brook, LLC" on Justia Law

Goforth v. Transform Holdco, LLC

2026-07-28T07:01:08-08:00

Matthew Goforth, through MG Management Co., LLC, entered a dealer agreement with Sears Authorized Home Stores that included a broad non-compete provision, extending restrictions to his spouse, Malinda Goforth. After Matt decided not to renew the agreement, Sears suspected the Goforths would open a competing business and initiated arbitration, seeking to enforce the non-compete. The Goforths opposed enforcement, asserting the provision was unreasonable. The arbitrator initially denied emergency injunctive relief but later, upon learning that Matt and Malinda were opening Goforth Home & Lawn, granted interim relief enforcing the non-compete and added Malinda and her company as parties. A final arbitration award enforced the non-compete, but an appellate arbitrator later held the provision unenforceable while affirming attorneys’ fees to Sears. Subsequently, the Goforths initiated a second arbitration alleging antitrust violations, but the arbitrator determined their antitrust claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been brought in the first arbitration. Following Sears’s bankruptcy, the Goforths brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against Sears’s owners, Transform Holdco, LLC and affiliates, asserting the same antitrust claims. Transform moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were compulsory counterclaims barred by their failure to raise them in the initial arbitration. The district court agreed, holding the claims accrued upon Sears’s initiation of the first arbitration and were thus subject to compulsory counterclaim rules. The court granted summary judgment for Transform and did not address alternative grounds or the Goforths’ partial summary judgment motion. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the Goforths’ antitrust claims accrued when Sears initiated the first arbitration, making them compulsory counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13. The court also held that Malinda and her company were bound by the agreement’s arbitration provision. View "Goforth v. Transform Holdco, LLC" on Justia Law

Rossetti v. Bare, Ltd.

2026-07-28T01:47:00-08:00

A physician assistant was employed at a medical spa operated by a corporation in Vermont, with the president as a co-defendant. The plaintiff worked part-time initially, then full-time beginning in 2018. Her employment agreement was amended that year to provide an annual salary, a bonus formula based on the employer’s gross sales for each calendar year, and paid vacation. She received bonuses in 2018 and 2019 but was terminated in December 2020 without receiving a bonus or payment for unused paid time off for that year. The plaintiff sued in the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, alleging breach of contract for underpaid bonuses in 2018 and 2019, failure to pay the 2020 bonus and unused PTO, and statutory wage violations. The trial was split, with contractual claims presented to a jury and wage claims to the court. After the plaintiff’s case, the court granted judgment as a matter of law to the defendants on the 2020 claims, finding insufficient evidence for breach or violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The jury found for the plaintiff on her bonus claims for 2018 and 2019, awarding damages, which the court doubled under Vermont’s wage statutes. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law post-trial, arguing insufficient evidence of gross sales, and the trial court ultimately granted their motion after reconsideration, entering judgment for defendants on all counts. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law de novo. The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the plaintiff presented insufficient evidence that the employer’s gross sales exceeded the thresholds required for higher bonuses in 2018 and 2019. The Court also affirmed judgment for defendants on the 2020 bonus and PTO claims, holding there was no evidence of bad faith or intent to deprive the plaintiff of accrued benefits. The Court reversed the denial of attorney’s fees for defendants and remanded for reconsideration of that request. View "Rossetti v. Bare, Ltd." on Justia Law

Inouye v. Estate of McHugo

2026-07-28T01:46:52-08:00

The case concerns a dispute among siblings arising from mutual wills executed by their parents, John and Patricia, after their divorce. The parents structured their assets as joint tenancies with rights of survivorship, intending that the survivor would use the property during their lifetime and then have it pass equally to their three children upon death. In 1997, both parents executed mutual wills in Arizona, agreeing not to alter or revoke them without mutual consent, and expressing a clear intention that all property owned at death would be divided equally among their children. After John’s death in 2010, all jointly titled assets passed to Patricia outside probate. Patricia later executed a new will in 2006, disinheriting her daughter Susan except for small bequests to Susan’s children and transferring major properties to her other two children, Gregory and Nancy, before she died in 2016. A Vermont probate court allowed Patricia’s 2006 will, rejecting Susan’s attempt to admit the earlier will. The Vermont Supreme Court, in a prior appeal, affirmed the admission of the 2006 will but noted Susan might have other remedies. Susan subsequently brought civil claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in the Vermont Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division. The trial court found for Susan on her unjust enrichment claims against Gregory and Nancy, holding that the mutual wills formed a binding contract to divide all property equally among the siblings and that Patricia breached it by transferring properties and disinheriting Susan. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Court held that the mutual wills were a binding contract requiring equal distribution of all property owned by the survivor at death, regardless of how it was acquired. The Court found that Patricia’s actions unjustly enriched Gregory and Nancy and upheld the remedies awarded, including a monetary judgment and a constructive trust. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest on the monetary portion of the judgment. View "Inouye v. Estate of McHugo" on Justia Law

The Law Firm of Fox & Fox v. Arteaga

2026-07-24T08:32:54-08:00

A law firm, represented by its own attorney, sued a former client to recover unpaid fees for legal services rendered during divorce and restraining order proceedings. A jury found in favor of the law firm, awarding it over $21,000. After prevailing, the firm sought to recover additional attorney fees under a provision in its retainer agreement that specifically stated the firm could collect such fees—even if it represented itself—without limitation by California Civil Code section 1717 or the California Supreme Court’s decision in Trope v. Katz. Following the jury verdict, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the law firm's motion for attorney fees. The court found that the retainer provision attempting to waive the limitations set by Trope v. Katz and section 1717 was contrary to public policy, oppressive, and unenforceable. The law firm appealed this denial, arguing that the express waiver in its agreement should entitle it to collect attorney fees even as a self-represented attorney. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The appellate court conducted a de novo review, focusing on whether the retainer agreement’s waiver provision could circumvent the statutory and public policy restrictions established by Trope v. Katz and Civil Code section 1717. The court held that parties cannot contract around section 1717’s requirement that attorney fees be “incurred,” nor override public policy by allowing self-represented attorneys to recover such fees. The court further ruled that section 1021 did not provide a separate basis for recovery in this context. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s order denying the law firm's motion for attorney fees. View "The Law Firm of Fox & Fox v. Arteaga" on Justia Law

8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad

2026-07-24T08:32:54-08:00

A commercial landlord leased a property to an individual, Sina, who stopped paying rent soon after the lease began, causing significant unpaid rent and property damage. The landlord regained possession of the property and found it had been gutted. The landlord sued Sina for breach of contract and prevailed at trial, but the initial judgment was reversed on appeal due to a change in parol evidence law. On retrial before a referee, the landlord again prevailed, with the referee finding substantial damages and the trial court adopting the referee’s decision, entering judgment for the landlord. This judgment was affirmed on appeal. After the second judgment, Sina and his wife filed for bankruptcy. During related bankruptcy proceedings, the landlord discovered new evidence revealing that Sina, his brothers, their wives, and a family-owned corporation, Amey, were all part of a longstanding “one-for-all” family partnership. The landlord moved in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to amend the judgment to add these family members and Amey as judgment debtors, arguing that they were the true parties in interest and had been virtually represented in the litigation by Sina. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the trial court's decision to amend the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings that the family members and Amey were part of a partnership that controlled the litigation and benefited from it. The court held that under Code of Civil Procedure section 187, a court may amend a judgment to add parties who had sufficient control of the litigation and unity of interest with the original judgment debtor, even if traditional alter ego requirements are not strictly met. The court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the addition of the individual partners and Amey as judgment debtors. View "8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad" on Justia Law

Fairholme Funds, Inc v. FHFA

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

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

Dressen v. AstraZeneca AB

2026-07-23T10:31:45-08:00

The plaintiff participated in a clinical trial for an experimental COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by AstraZeneca in November 2020. Before receiving the vaccine, she signed an informed-consent form stating that AstraZeneca would compensate her for injuries caused by the vaccine, including providing medical care and reimbursement, and that the company had an insurance policy to cover such costs. The form also disclosed that federal law may limit her right to sue for vaccine-related injuries, referencing the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which provides broad immunity to vaccine manufacturers during a public health emergency. After suffering debilitating medical injuries from the vaccine, the plaintiff requested compensation and care from AstraZeneca, which was denied. She then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, alleging breach of contract and breach of the contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. AstraZeneca moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the PREP Act immunized it from liability. The district court denied the motion, holding that the PREP Act’s immunity provision applies only to tort claims, not to contract-based claims. The court further reserved judgment on whether AstraZeneca had waived its statutory immunity in the informed-consent form. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s ruling. The appellate court held that the PREP Act’s immunity provision applies to “all claims for loss,” including those arising from breach of contract, provided they bear a causal relationship to the administration or use of a covered countermeasure like a vaccine. The court remanded the case for the district court to consider whether AstraZeneca waived immunity in the informed-consent form. View "Dressen v. AstraZeneca AB" on Justia Law

RMS v. Commerce Bank

2026-07-23T07:31:02-08:00

A technology company developed a healthcare revenue management software platform and, in 2014, licensed a white-labeled version to a bank. The bank branded this software as its own and used it to provide services to its customers. The licensing agreement gave the bank access to confidential software and data, while prohibiting reverse engineering, copying, or creating derivative works. In 2018, the bank began developing its own software that performed similar functions. The technology company later noticed a decline in users of its platform and suspected the bank had breached the contract by reverse engineering and copying its software. The company then sought a preliminary injunction to stop the bank from using its new platform and from misusing the information gained through the contract. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri reviewed the request for a preliminary injunction. The district court found that the technology company failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, ruling that any potential financial losses could be compensated with money damages and that claims of reputational harm were too speculative. The court also determined that the contract’s clause permitting injunctive relief was not, by itself, sufficient to require an injunction. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding the alleged harms compensable with money damages or too speculative, nor did it abuse its discretion by giving limited weight to the contract’s injunctive relief provision. The court emphasized that failure to demonstrate likely irreparable harm is, by itself, a sufficient ground to deny a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "RMS v. Commerce Bank" on Justia Law

La Belle Dairy, LLC v. Sharpe Holdings, Inc.

2026-07-23T07:31:00-08:00

A dairy operator in Northeast Missouri leased thousands of acres of adjacent forage land from a landowner to grow feed for its cattle and manage waste under regulatory requirements. The lease included provisions for renewal at a market rental rate and an agreement for the eventual sale of the leased and surrounding acreage to the dairy, with fair market value to be established by appraisal if necessary. The dairy alleged that the landowner breached the lease by unilaterally raising rent, demanding an unfavorable addendum, and refusing to complete the agreed land sales, while the landowner asserted that the dairy breached by not signing the addendum and threatened eviction. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the dairy’s request for injunctive relief, enjoining the landowner from evicting or otherwise interfering with the dairy’s possession of the leased land. The landowner appealed, arguing lack of adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, as well as contesting the enforceability of the lease and the propriety of the injunction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit first determined it had jurisdiction, treating the lower court order as a preliminary injunction rather than a temporary restraining order, based on its duration and effect. The appellate court held that the landowner waived or forfeited its due process objections by not raising them below. On the merits, the court found the dairy had a fair chance of prevailing on its contract claims, including the enforceability of the land-sale provision and compliance with notice requirements. The court further concluded that the dairy faced irreparable harm due to threatened loss of unique land, that the balance of harms favored the dairy, and that the public interest did not weigh against the injunction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s issuance of the preliminary injunction. View "La Belle Dairy, LLC v. Sharpe Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Maine Human Rights Commission v. Larkin

2026-07-23T07:09:09-08:00

The Maine Human Rights Commission filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court alleging that a landlord discriminated against his tenant based on sex, asserting claims under both the Maine Human Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. After litigation began, the tenant requested a judicial settlement conference. The landlord did not attend the conference, but his attorney and daughter attended, allegedly with his authority to settle. After the conference, a record form stated that the parties had agreed to a full and final settlement, but disagreements arose during subsequent exchanges of draft settlement agreements, particularly over provisions related to an acknowledgment of antidiscrimination laws and certain “public-relief terms” such as fair-housing training and property management oversight. The Kennebec County Superior Court reviewed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the court found that the parties intended to be bound by an agreement reached at the settlement conference, as reflected in the settlement conference record form. The court identified five basic terms as the substance of the agreement, including a payment to the tenant and specific non-monetary provisions. The court ordered the parties to execute an agreement consistent with these terms, except for the acknowledgment provision, which it found was not part of the agreement. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court found that the record was insufficient to support the Superior Court’s finding that the parties mutually assented to all material terms of a binding settlement agreement. The Supreme Judicial Court held that, in the absence of an evidentiary hearing or a sufficiently detailed record, the lower court erred in enforcing the settlement. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the parties actually reached a binding agreement and, if so, its precise terms. View "Maine Human Rights Commission v. Larkin" on Justia Law

American Family Insurance Company vs. NB Electric, Inc.

2026-07-23T05:07:14-08:00

A homeowner hired a general contractor to perform a remodeling project, which included electrical work provided by a subcontractor. During construction, a fire occurred at the home, allegedly due to improper electrical work by both the general contractor and the subcontractor. The homeowner’s insurer paid for the fire damage and, acting as subrogee, brought a negligence and breach of contract action against both contractors. After the fire, the homeowner discontinued the services of both contractors and later hired a new general contractor to complete the project. The Minnesota District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the contractors, dismissing the insurer’s claims as time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations for defective construction claims involving improvements to real property, as set out in Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1. The district court found that the statute of limitations began to run when the homeowner terminated the contract with the original general contractor, concluding that the action was not timely filed. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court interpreted the statute to mean that the statute of limitations does not begin until the entire construction project is terminated, substantially completed, or abandoned, not merely upon termination of the contract with the general contractor. The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed the case to resolve the statutory interpretation issue. The court held that, for purposes of the statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1, the termination of the contract with the general contractor constitutes “termination … of the construction or the improvement to real property.” As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the district court’s dismissal of the insurer’s claims as time-barred. View "American Family Insurance Company vs. NB Electric, Inc." on Justia Law

One Church v. Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co.

2026-07-23T05:04:35-08:00

A church with property insurance sustained windstorm damage and submitted a claim to its insurer. When the parties could not agree on the amount of loss, the church invoked the insurance policy’s binding appraisal process. Each party selected an appraiser, and the appraisers agreed on an award, which the insurer paid and the church accepted. Afterward, the church alleged it discovered additional, previously hidden damages, and the insurer refused to pay more than the appraisal award. The church then sued, claiming breach of contract and seeking to set aside the binding appraisal based on the later-discovered damage. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted judgment on the pleadings to the insurer, finding that the appraisal award was binding and there was no evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake to justify reopening the award. The Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the church’s complaint pleaded mistake with sufficient particularity to satisfy Ohio’s Civil Rule 9(B), which requires that mistake be pled with particularity. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that a binding appraisal award may only be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake, defined as an egregious error undermining the intent of the agreement, not a mere error in judgment. The court further concluded that, to plead mistake with particularity under Civil Rule 9(B), the facts alleged must satisfy the elements of mistake. Since the church only alleged that additional, hidden damages were discovered after the appraisal, and did not plead facts constituting a manifest mistake by the appraisers, the complaint did not state a claim for mistake. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Tenth District’s judgment and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. View "One Church v. Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law