Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Fieldwood Energy operated an offshore platform near Louisiana and contracted with United Fire and Safety to provide fire watch services for repairs. Fieldwood also separately chartered a liftboat from Aries Marine to support the work, which included housing and crane services for the contractors. During the project, the liftboat listed and capsized, leading to personal injuries for a United Fire employee. Aries Marine, facing liability claims, sought indemnification from United Fire based on a cross-indemnification clause in the 2013 Master Services Contract (MSC) between Fieldwood and United Fire.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana considered cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the MSC was a maritime contract. The district court found that the contract was not maritime in nature, applying Louisiana law via the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which incorporates the law of the adjacent state unless federal maritime law applies. Louisiana’s Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act invalidated the indemnity provisions. Aries’s motions for reconsideration were denied, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court agreed that the MSC did not require or contemplate that a vessel would play a substantial role in the contracted fire watch services. It found that only Fieldwood, not United Fire, expected the liftboat’s substantial involvement, and that such a shared expectation was necessary under circuit precedent to create a maritime contract. Because the parties did not share this expectation, the contract was not maritime, and Louisiana law voided the indemnity provisions. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Aries Marine v. United Fire & Safety" on Justia Law

Morgan Lohman purchased a 25.8-acre property, knowing that a homeowners’ association, Cave Bay Community Services, Inc., held a permanent easement on 7.31 acres and had an option agreement with the sellers, the Drehers, to purchase the easement land for one dollar once the Drehers’ loans were paid off. Despite concerns about the effect of this option on the value and use of his property, Lohman proceeded with the purchase. After the sale, the Drehers paid off their loans, and Cave Bay exercised its option to buy the easement property for one dollar, which Lohman refused to honor.Cave Bay filed suit against Lohman in the District Court of the First Judicial District of Idaho, alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeking specific performance of the option agreement. Cave Bay moved for summary judgment only as to the specific performance “claim.” The district court granted summary judgment to Cave Bay on that basis, struck much of Lohman’s opposing declaration, and awarded Cave Bay attorney fees and costs. The court did not address the merits of the underlying breach of contract claim. After the parties dismissed the remaining claims, Lohman appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and held that specific performance is a remedy, not a stand-alone cause of action. The court concluded that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on specific performance without first determining liability on the underlying breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s amended judgment, reversed the summary judgment ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court also vacated the award of attorney fees and costs, but awarded appellate costs to Lohman. No attorney fees were awarded on appeal as there was no prevailing party at this stage. View "Cave Bay Community Services v. Lohman" on Justia Law

Two students enrolled at a private university in California during early 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic prompted widespread campus closures. In accordance with local lockdown orders, the university transitioned from in-person to online instruction in March 2020. Prior to the Fall 2020 semester, the university communicated with students about its intention to return to in-person education but made clear that such plans depended on approval from local authorities. Ultimately, the university continued remote instruction. The students remained enrolled and later graduated.The students filed suit in the Superior Court of Orange County, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices. They argued that the university had made an enforceable promise to provide in-person education, citing various university publications, course listings, policies, and statements about on-campus experiences. They sought a partial tuition refund and raised alternative claims regarding unfair or unlawful representations. The university moved for summary judgment, asserting that it had not made any specific promise to provide in-person instruction and that its statements reflected only general expectations. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the university, relying on Berlanga v. University of San Francisco and finding no triable issue of material fact regarding any misrepresentation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment. The court held that the university’s statements and practices did not constitute sufficiently specific enforceable promises of in-person education under California law. The court found that only specific, explicit promises are enforceable in the student-university relationship, and none were present here. The court also rejected the students’ unjust enrichment and unfair business practices claims. The judgment in favor of the university was affirmed, and the university was awarded costs on appeal. View "Grant v. Chapman University" on Justia Law

This case arises from a contract dispute related to a broader multidistrict antitrust litigation involving alleged price-fixing in the sale of broiler chickens. The parties, a meat producer and a commercial purchaser, engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve the purchaser’s antitrust claims across three cases (Broilers, Beef, and Pork) for a total of $50 million. The negotiations included email exchanges where the purchaser appeared to accept a settlement offer, but several terms—including compliance with a judgment sharing agreement, assignment data, a “most favored nation” clause, and allocation among cases—remained unresolved. The purchaser had obtained litigation funding, which required consent from the funder for any settlement.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially denied the producer’s motion for summary judgment in 2023 but later granted the producer’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court found that the parties had agreed to the essential material terms: the $50 million payment and release of claims. It relied on draft settlement agreements, despite their lack of signatures, to memorialize agreement on additional terms. The court rejected arguments regarding laches and jurisdiction and subsequently granted summary judgment to the producer, concluding its obligations had been fulfilled by payment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. It held that no binding settlement agreement existed as of the purchaser’s “We accept” email because several material terms remained open and unresolved at that time. The court found that, under Illinois law, mutual assent to all material terms is required for a binding contract, and the parties had continued to negotiate those material terms for months after the email exchange. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Carina Ventures LLC v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation" on Justia Law

Lanesborough 2000, LLC and Nextres, LLC entered into a loan agreement for the funding of a self-storage facility in Corning, New York. The deal included an arbitration agreement that required disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration. Lanesborough alleged that Nextres breached the agreement by failing to disburse loan funds as promised. An arbitrator found in favor of Lanesborough, awarding consequential damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees based on Nextres’s bad faith conduct. The arbitration agreement contained a waiver of the “right to appeal,” but did not specify its scope.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York partially confirmed the arbitrator’s awards. It confirmed the awards of consequential damages, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees, finding that the fee award was permissible because it was based on a finding of bad faith. The District Court also granted Lanesborough’s requests for injunctive relief by ordering Nextres to comply with the loan agreement and enjoining Nextres from pursuing foreclosure actions, including a pending state court foreclosure against a related party. The District Court awarded Lanesborough post-award prejudgment interest and stayed enforcement of its judgment pending appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit first held that the parties’ contractual waiver of the “right to appeal” was ambiguous and not sufficiently clear or unequivocal to preclude appellate review. On the merits, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the arbitrator’s awards and its grant of post-award prejudgment interest. However, it vacated the district court’s injunction barring the state-court foreclosure action because the lower court had not considered whether the injunction was consistent with the Anti-Injunction Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Lanesborough 2000, LLC v. Nextres, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a New Hampshire-based corporation, acquired patents and software from a military contractor and sought to adapt the technology for consumer telecommunications. The defendant, a Finnish multinational, manufactures cellular base stations. In 2015, the parties began discussions about integrating the plaintiff’s software into the defendant’s products. By February 2017, negotiations focused on two main points: a fee for integration work and a lump sum for a perpetual software license. On June 6, 2017, the plaintiff alleges both parties orally agreed to a $3 million integration fee and a $20 million license fee. The defendant disputes whether such an oral agreement occurred. The plaintiff continued work based on this understanding. Later, the defendant offered a lower license fee in a draft written contract, which the plaintiff rejected. Eventually, the defendant canceled the project.After cancellation, the plaintiff sued the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Following a ten-day trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on breach of contract and promissory estoppel, awarding $23 million in damages. The district court, considering the defendant’s statute-of-frauds defense, determined that the core issue was whether the perpetual license agreement could be performed within one year. The court found this, along with other issues, raised novel questions of New Hampshire law without binding precedent, and certified three questions to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the certified questions. It held that, under New Hampshire law, obligations imposed by a perpetual intellectual property license can be performed within one year, because, absent express language to the contrary, the licensor’s obligations are fulfilled upon granting the license. The court declined to answer the other two certified questions, as its answer to the first resolved the determinative legal issue. The case was remanded to the district court. View "Collision Commc'ns v. Nokia Solutions and Networks OY" on Justia Law

The United States Department of Commerce issued a request for proposals seeking enterprise-wide information technology services. After evaluating numerous proposals, the agency announced fifteen presumptive contract awardees. CAN Softtech, Inc. (CSI) and other unsuccessful offerors challenged the awards, alleging flaws in the evaluation process. The agency responded by reevaluating the proposals multiple times, making adjustments to the technical evaluation team, and ultimately reissuing awards to the same fifteen companies. Each time, CSI and others filed new or amended bid protests, contending that the agency’s corrective actions and reevaluations were improper.The United States Court of Federal Claims initially found the agency’s evaluation of CSI’s proposal arbitrary and capricious and enjoined performance of the contracts pending reevaluation. After further corrective action by the agency, including terminating awards and issuing new evaluations, the trial court determined that the agency’s final evaluation and contract awards were rational and supported by the record. The court considered the agency’s process for reevaluation and corrective action to have satisfied procedural requirements, and rejected CSI’s argument that the agency needed to seek voluntary remand before taking corrective action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the trial court’s judgment de novo. The court held that administrative agencies possess inherent authority to terminate contract awards and take unilateral corrective action in response to bid protests, so long as they act within statutory and procedural bounds and avoid arbitrary or capricious conduct. The court also determined that the agency’s actions in this case did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act and were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of CSI’s bid protest. View "SYNEREN TECHNOLOGIES CORP. v. US " on Justia Law

Premium Healthcare Solutions, LLC, an Illinois company, had two competing judgment creditors: Vivek Bedi and MedLegal Solutions, Inc. Bedi obtained a state court judgment against “Premier Healthcare Solutions, LLC” in 2022, which was a misnomer for Premium. His lien on Premium’s assets was thus not discoverable to other creditors. MedLegal, a medical billing company, later secured an arbitration award and a federal court judgment against Premium in 2024 after discovering Premium had breached their contract. Both Bedi and MedLegal initiated collection efforts targeting Premium’s assets, particularly its accounts receivable managed by third parties.After Bedi discovered the misnomer in his judgment, he obtained a corrective order in Illinois state court in September 2024, amending his judgment nunc pro tunc to name Premium as the debtor and making the correction effective as of the original judgment date. Concerned that Bedi’s corrected judgment might threaten its priority, MedLegal sought a federal court order establishing its claim as superior. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Bedi intervened but focused his opposition on jurisdictional grounds, invoking the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The district court rejected this argument and granted MedLegal’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling MedLegal’s interest as superior. The court subsequently issued a turnover order requiring certain third parties to transfer Premium’s assets to MedLegal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that appellate jurisdiction was proper because the February 11, 2025, turnover order was a final decision. The Seventh Circuit also found that Rooker-Feldman did not bar the district court’s jurisdiction, as MedLegal was not a party to the prior state court action. Finally, because Bedi failed to raise any substantive arguments on priority in the district court, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s turnover order in favor of MedLegal. View "Bedi v Premium Healthcare Solutions LLC" on Justia Law

Several shareholders of Paya Holdings, Inc.—who were originally sponsors of a special purpose acquisition company that merged with Paya—held “Earnout Shares” subject to contractual transfer restrictions. Under the Sponsor Support Agreement (“SSA”), these shares could not be transferred until October 2025 unless a “Change in Control” occurred and the price per share exceeded $15.00. If the price was below $15.00, the Earnout Shares would be automatically forfeited prior to consummation of the change. In January 2023, Nuvei Corporation agreed to purchase all Paya shares for $9.75 per share in a tender offer. The offer required that tendered shares be freely transferable. The appellants attempted to tender their Earnout Shares, but Nuvei rejected them, citing the SSA’s restrictions.The shareholders sued Nuvei in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Nuvei violated the SEC’s Best Price Rule, which requires the highest consideration paid to any shareholder in a tender offer to be paid to all shareholders of that class. The District Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim, reasoning that no consideration was actually paid to the appellants because their shares were not validly tendered due to the transfer restrictions.On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The Third Circuit held that the Best Price Rule does not require a tender offeror to purchase shares that are subject to self-imposed transfer restrictions. The Rule mandates equal payment only for shares “taken up and paid for” pursuant to a tender offer, and it is silent regarding whether offerors must accept all tendered shares. Therefore, Nuvei was not required to purchase the appellants’ restricted shares, and dismissal of their claim was proper. View "Abramowski v. Nuvei Corp" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who provided subadvisory investment services and loaned $1.5 million to FolioMetrix (personally guaranteed by two individuals), later engaged with defendants involved in a proposed merger of investment firms. Plaintiffs alleged that during merger negotiations, defendant Putnam promised to relieve the original borrowers of their obligations and personally assume the debt. Subsequent communications referenced intentions to transfer the loan liability to the new entity, but when plaintiffs sought a formal promissory note, defendants refused. Ultimately, defendants did not repay any portion of the loan.Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in March 2019, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. At trial, the central dispute was whether defendants had agreed to assume the loan obligations under the promissory note. Plaintiffs argued that the agreement was formed through emails and conduct, while defendants denied any assumption of liability. The jury found in favor of defendants, determining no contract was formed and no promise was made to repay the loans. Following trial, the court awarded defendants attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717, based on a fee provision in the original promissory note, after reducing the requested amount.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, addressed several issues. It ruled that the automatic bankruptcy stay did not preclude resolution of the appeal because the debtor (NAI) was the plaintiff rather than a defendant. The court rejected plaintiffs’ claims of error regarding jury instructions on contract formation, finding insufficient argument and no prejudice. It affirmed the attorney fee award, concluding the action was “on the contract” containing the fee provision, and held the fee amount was within the trial court’s discretion. The judgment and fee order were affirmed. View "Navellier v. Putnam" on Justia Law