Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

USAA Savings Bank closed Michael Goff’s credit card account, providing him with inconsistent explanations for its actions. Goff pursued arbitration under the arbitration agreement contained in his credit card contract, seeking actual and punitive damages. The agreement allowed the arbitrator to award punitive damages but explicitly required a post-award review of such damages, with procedural protections and a written, reasoned explanation, before any punitive damages award could become final.An arbitrator held an evidentiary hearing and determined that USAA had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by failing to provide Goff with adequate notice upon closing his account. Despite finding that Goff suffered no actual damages, the arbitrator awarded $10,000 in punitive damages and over $77,000 in attorney’s fees. USAA requested the post-award review mandated by the agreement, but the arbitrator declined, citing American Arbitration Association rules, and finalized the award without conducting the review.USAA filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking to vacate the arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator had exceeded her authority by disregarding the post-award review requirement. The district court acknowledged the arbitrator’s error but confirmed the award, concluding it nonetheless “drew from the essence of the arbitration agreement.” USAA appealed, and Goff sought sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by ignoring the arbitration agreement’s clear requirement for a post-award review of punitive damages. The court determined there was no “possible interpretive route” to support the arbitrator’s action, vacated the district court’s judgment, denied Goff’s motion for sanctions, and remanded with instructions to refer the matter back to the original arbitrator for proceedings consistent with the agreement. View "USAA Savings Bank v Goff" on Justia Law

A former high-level employee left her position at a company after receiving incentive equity agreements that included non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions. She subsequently joined a competitor. The company alleged that she breached those provisions by working for the competitor and that, in the short time since her move, at least five important clients had also moved to the competitor, an unusual loss rate for the business. The employee’s role at her former employer was not confined to a single region, and she was involved in high-level strategic decisions affecting company operations nationwide. The restrictive covenants at issue included an 18-month, nationwide non-compete and were supported by incentive units that would vest over time or upon sale of the company.After the company filed suit, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware denied a temporary restraining order but expedited proceedings. The defendants moved to dismiss. The company amended its complaint with more detailed allegations. The Court of Chancery granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the non-compete was unenforceable due to its breadth and the minimal value of the consideration provided, and that the allegations of breach of the non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions were conclusory. It also dismissed related tortious interference claims.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Chancery improperly drew inferences against the employer at the pleading stage and failed to credit factual allegations supporting the claims. The Supreme Court found it was reasonably conceivable that the non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions could be enforceable, and that the complaint sufficiently alleged breaches. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, limiting its holding to the adequacy of the pleadings and expressing no view on ultimate enforceability. View "Payscale Inc. v. Norman" on Justia Law

A company providing internet and phone services on the Delmarva Peninsula began experiencing significant network interference, which it attributed to a larger telecommunications provider. The company alleged that the interference resulted from the provider operating outside its assigned frequency band, transmitting at excessive power levels, and deploying 5G technology in a manner that impeded its established 4G service. Additionally, the company claimed that the larger provider undermined its business relationships with university partners from whom it leased necessary radio frequencies, by interfering with those relationships and attempting to acquire the relevant FCC licenses.After informal attempts to resolve the interference, the company filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), requesting relief including monetary compensation for necessary network upgrades. The FCC dismissed the complaint, and the company’s request for reconsideration remained pending. Subsequently, the company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, asserting claims under the Communications Act and Maryland state law. The district court dismissed all claims, concluding that the federal claim was either unavailable or barred, the state-law claims were preempted, and the remaining state-law tort claim failed under the applicable legal standard.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the plaintiff’s claim under the Communications Act was barred by the Act’s election-of-remedies provision, as the company had already sought relief from the FCC on the same underlying issues. The court further held that the Communications Act expressly preempted the state-law network interference claims. Finally, the court found that the company had forfeited its only appellate argument regarding the dismissal of its business tort claim, as it had failed to preserve that argument in the district court. Thus, the judgment was affirmed. View "Bloosurf, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Corelle, a company that sold Instapot multifunction cookers, entered into a 2016 master supply agreement (MSA) with Midea, the manufacturer. Under this arrangement, individual purchase orders (POs) were used for each transaction, detailing specific terms such as price and quantity. Each PO typically included Corelle’s own terms, including indemnity provisions. In 2023, Corelle filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, as part of its reorganization plan, sold its appliances business and assigned the MSA to the buyer. However, Corelle sought to retain its indemnification rights for products purchased under completed POs made before the assignment.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Midea’s objection to this arrangement, finding that the POs were severable contracts distinct from the MSA. This meant the indemnification rights related to completed POs remained with Corelle. Midea appealed, contending that the MSA and all related POs formed a single, indivisible contract that should have been assigned in its entirety. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, emphasizing that the structure of the MSA and the parties’ course of dealing supported the divisibility of the POs from the MSA.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the standards applied by the lower courts, the interpretation of the contracts, and the application of 11 U.S.C. § 365(f). The appellate court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding the POs were divisible from the MSA, that Corelle’s retention of indemnification rights did not violate bankruptcy law, and that the lower courts applied the correct standards of review. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "GuangDong Midea v. Unsecured Creditors" on Justia Law

A woman with dementia was admitted to a memory care facility, where her family warned staff about her tendency to wander and need for supervision. Three days after admission, she was found unattended in a courtyard on a 102-degree day, suffering from severe burns and heatstroke, ultimately dying days later. Her family, acting as successors in interest and individually, sued the facility for elder neglect, negligence, fraud, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Upon admission, her niece had signed an arbitration agreement on her behalf, which the family argued should not bind their individual claims or override their right to a jury trial.The Superior Court of Sacramento County considered the facility’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. The court found a valid arbitration agreement existed for the decedent’s survivor claims but ruled that the agreement did not bind the family members' individual claims, as they were not parties to the agreement. The court also declined to compel arbitration of the survivor claims under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c), citing the risk of conflicting rulings if the family’s claims proceeded in court while survivor claims were arbitrated. The court further held that the agreement’s reference to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not expressly incorporate the FAA’s procedural provisions to preempt California law.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It held that the arbitration agreement did not clearly and unmistakably delegate threshold issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and that the FAA’s procedural provisions were not expressly adopted by the agreement. Therefore, California law applied, and the trial court properly exercised its discretion to deny arbitration to avoid inconsistent rulings. The judgment was affirmed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs. View "Wright v. WellQuest Elk Grove" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between an investment banker and the firm where he was employed regarding his status and compensation. Initially, the banker joined the firm under an employment offer letter that set out specific compensation terms. Over time, both sides attempted to negotiate changes to this arrangement, exchanging draft agreements and addenda. They met to discuss these terms but left with differing understandings. The banker believed an oral partnership agreement had been reached, while the firm contended only his compensation as an employee was modified. When the banker later made a demand for access to certain records, the firm denied his request, asserting he was not a partner.The case was first addressed by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, which found after trial that no oral partnership agreement had been formed, meaning the banker was not a partner entitled to records access under Delaware law. The court also noted that questions about the banker’s compensation as an employee would be determined in a separate, subsequent action. Following this, the banker filed counterclaims in the ongoing plenary action seeking relief based on his employment letter, but the Court of Chancery dismissed most of these counterclaims. It held that they were barred by collateral estoppel because they relied on facts the court had found against the banker in the earlier proceeding.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed whether collateral estoppel properly barred the banker’s counterclaims about his compensation. The Supreme Court concluded that the earlier factual findings about the banker’s compensation were not essential to the judgment that he was not a partner. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of the banker’s counterclaims relating to his compensation as an employee and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Handler v. Centerview Partners Holdings LP" on Justia Law

An individual purchased a long-term care insurance policy that covered expenses incurred at nursing or assisted living facilities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, at age 94, the insured fractured her hip and, due to concerns about contracting COVID-19 in a communal setting, received post-surgical care at home as prescribed by her physician. When she submitted a claim for these home health care expenses, the insurance company denied coverage, stating that her policy did not include home care benefits. The insured had selected a policy that covered only institutional care, though an alternative plan of care provision allowed for non-institutional benefits if certain conditions were met, including mutual agreement between the insured, her provider, and the insurer.The insured, through her successor trustees, filed a breach of contract action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court found in favor of the insurer, holding that the policy did not provide home health care benefits, and that the denial of coverage under the alternative plan of care provision was not in bad faith because the insured had not met the necessary conditions to trigger that provision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that the policy did not provide for home health care benefits, as required for the relevant Illinois insurance regulation to apply. The court also determined that the alternative plan of care provision was discretionary and did not guarantee coverage for home care. Additionally, the insurer did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by enforcing the explicit terms of the policy. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Hartnett v Jackson National Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A venture capitalist and two scientists, who had previously collaborated on successful biotechnology companies, engaged in discussions and took steps toward forming a new enterprise to develop and commercialize carbon-hydrogen bond activation technology. As these discussions progressed, disagreements arose regarding the scale of initial funding needed. The scientists believed more substantial investment was required than the amount offered by the venture capitalist. Ultimately, the scientists pursued alternative sources of funding, and the parties’ collaboration did not materialize into a finalized business.After this breakdown, the venture capitalist and his company filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of San Diego County against the two scientists, alleging breach of oral and implied joint venture agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit. The scientists moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the scientists on all claims. The court found that any oral or implied joint venture agreement was barred by the statute of frauds, there was no enforceable agreement, and the plaintiffs had not expected compensation directly from the defendants.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the statute of frauds applies to oral or implied joint venture agreements that, by their terms, cannot be performed within one year. The court found no genuine dispute that developing the technology would necessarily take more than one year, rendering the alleged joint venture unenforceable. The breach of fiduciary duty claim failed because it depended on a valid joint venture. The promissory estoppel and quantum meruit claims failed due to the absence of clear and unambiguous promises and because compensation was expected from the venture, not the defendants directly. The judgment was affirmed. View "Clarke v. Yu" on Justia Law

A South Korean video game conglomerate acquired a U.S.-based game studio known for its hit title, Subnautica, in 2021. The acquisition terms included a $500 million upfront payment and a possible $250 million in contingent earnout payments. To secure the studio’s continued creative success, the buyer contractually guaranteed that the founders and CEO would retain operational control and could only be terminated for cause. As the studio prepared to release Subnautica 2, internal projections showed that the game would likely trigger the large earnout payment. Fearing the contract was too generous, the buyer’s leadership sought ways to block the earnout, including consulting an AI chatbot for takeover strategies. The buyer then locked the studio out of its publishing platform, posted critical messages on its website, and fired the founders and CEO, initially claiming a lack of game readiness as cause.After the representative of the former shareholders sued in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, the buyer changed its justification, asserting that the executives had abandoned their roles and improperly downloaded company data. The court found that both the studio’s leadership transitions and the data downloads were transparent, known to, and accepted by the buyer before the terminations. The court also found that the buyer’s new grounds for termination were pretextual and not supported by the evidence.The Court of Chancery held that the buyer breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the key employees without cause and usurping their operational control. As a remedy, the court ordered specific performance: the CEO was reinstated with full operational authority, and the earnout period was equitably extended by the duration of his ouster. Issues regarding potential damages for lost earnout revenue were reserved for a later phase. View "Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Krafton, Inc." on Justia Law

Equinor contracted with Lindale to supply water for hydraulic fracturing operations in North Dakota. The agreement established that Lindale would build a pipeline to deliver water, financed by Equinor’s predecessor, who would then own the pipeline. In exchange, Lindale would serve as the exclusive supplier and pumper of water “on the Pipeline,” at below-market rates. Years later, after Equinor acquired its predecessor, technological advances enabled water delivery via lay-flat hoses, a method cheaper than using the pipeline. Equinor began purchasing water from other suppliers using this new method, rather than from Lindale.Lindale sued Equinor for breach of contract in the District Court, arguing that the exclusivity clause gave Lindale the exclusive right to supply water for all of Equinor’s fracking operations. The district court found the relevant contract provision ambiguous and submitted its interpretation to a jury. The jury found for Lindale and awarded $26 million in damages. The Texas Court of Appeals for the First District affirmed, concluding that Equinor had breached the contract and that the damages award was not excessive.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and determined that the contract was unambiguous. The court interpreted the exclusivity clause to apply solely to water supplied “on the Pipeline,” as defined by the contract, and not to all water delivered to Equinor’s wells by other means. As a result, Equinor’s purchase of water from other suppliers for wells not “on the Pipeline” did not breach the contract. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment for Equinor, holding that there was no breach as a matter of law. View "EQUINOR ENERGY LP v. LINDALE PIPELINE, LLC" on Justia Law