Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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