Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2005, Full Circle Villagebrook GP, LLC formed a partnership with Protech 2004-D, LLC and AMTAX Holdings 436, LLC to develop and operate an affordable housing project in Illinois. Full Circle, as the General Partner, held a minor ownership stake but had an option to buy out the Limited Partners after 15 years, based on the property's fair market value. The partnership agreement specified that the appraiser for this valuation must be selected from the approved lists of LaSalle Bank or Deutsche Bank Berkshire Mortgage (DBBM). When Full Circle attempted to exercise this option in 2020, it selected an appraiser from the approved lists of the successor banks to LaSalle and DBBM, as the original banks no longer existed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the Limited Partners and Alden Torch Financial, LLC. The court held that Full Circle did not comply with the partnership agreement's terms, as it did not select an appraiser from the lists of the named banks, nor did it seek the Investor Limited Partner's approval for an alternative appraiser. Consequently, the court denied Full Circle's claims for breach of contract and tortious interference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the contract's language was unambiguous and required strict compliance with the specified method for selecting an appraiser. Since Full Circle did not adhere to these terms, it failed to validly exercise its option, and no binding contract was formed. Therefore, the Limited Partners were not in breach, and Full Circle's claims were properly dismissed. View "Full Circle Villagebrook GP, LLC v. Protech 2004-D, LLC" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan company, HSR, engaged another Guatemalan company, AICSA, to design and construct a hydroelectric power plant. The project faced opposition from the local indigenous community, leading to work suspension and eventual contract termination by HSR. HSR initiated arbitration seeking payments and damages from AICSA, which counterclaimed for its own damages and sought to include its subcontractor, Novacom, in the arbitration.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially denied AICSA's motion to vacate the arbitration award, citing Eleventh Circuit precedent. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc decision, later reversed this, holding that Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides grounds for vacatur in cases governed by the New York Convention. The case was remanded to the District Court, which ultimately confirmed the arbitration award, leading to AICSA's appeal.The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the arbitration tribunal did not exceed its authority in three key areas: requiring AICSA to maintain or renew advance payment bonds, denying AICSA's claim that HSR breached anti-corruption provisions, and refusing to join Novacom to the arbitration. The court emphasized that the tribunal's decisions were based on interpretations of the contract, even if those interpretations were arguably erroneous. The court's review was limited to whether the tribunal interpreted the contract, not whether it did so correctly. View "Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A. v. Corporacion AIC, SA" on Justia Law

Alvin Johnson pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine under a plea agreement. The agreement included a stipulation regarding the drug quantity and its base offense level but allowed the Government to make a sentencing recommendation. Johnson was initially sentenced to 128 months in prison, classified as a career offender based on prior convictions. He later successfully challenged one of these convictions, leading to a recalculated Guidelines range of 57-71 months.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina initially sentenced Johnson to 128 months. Upon remand, after Johnson's successful challenge to his career offender status, the Probation Office recalculated his Guidelines range to 57-71 months. The Government then moved for an upward departure or variance, arguing that Johnson's criminal history warranted a higher sentence. The district court agreed and sentenced Johnson to 120 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Johnson argued that the Government breached the plea agreement by seeking a sentence above the recalculated Guidelines range. The court found that the plea agreement did not restrict the Government from recommending a higher sentence and that the Government had reserved the right to make a sentencing recommendation. The court held that the Government did not breach the plea agreement and affirmed the 120-month sentence. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A salesperson from Elite Home Remodeling, Inc. visited the home of Harold and Lucy West, both in their 90s and suffering from dementia, to discuss solar panel installation and home renovation. The salesperson, Ilai Mitmiger, allegedly obtained Harold's electronic signature on a loan agreement with Solar Mosaic LLC (Mosaic) through Deon, the Wests' daughter, who provided her email for the documents. The loan agreement was signed electronically in Harold's name within seconds, despite Harold's apparent lack of understanding and technical ability.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Mosaic's petition to compel arbitration, finding that Mosaic failed to prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The court determined that Mosaic did not establish that Harold signed the loan documents or that Deon had the authority to bind Harold to the agreement.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court's order. The appellate court held that the evidence presented, including Harold's dementia and lack of technical skills, created a factual dispute about the authenticity of Harold's electronic signatures. The court also found that Mosaic did not prove Deon had the authority to act as Harold's agent or that Harold ratified the agreement during a recorded phone call with Mosaic. The court concluded that the recorded call did not demonstrate Harold's awareness or understanding of the loan agreement, thus failing to establish ratification. The order denying the petition to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "West v. Solar Mosaic, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an entrepreneur, helped form a medical business with a surgeon. The business, structured as a limited liability company (LLC), operated surgery centers and distributed profits to its members, including the plaintiff. Over time, the plaintiff became inactive but continued to receive substantial profits. Tensions arose when the plaintiff refused buyout offers from other members. The plaintiff then directed his attorney to send a threatening letter to various stakeholders, alleging illegal activities within the company. This letter caused significant concern among the recipients, leading the company to warn the plaintiff that he would be ejected without compensation if he did not retract his statements within 30 days. The plaintiff refused, and the company subsequently ousted him, valuing his shares at zero.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County rejected all of the plaintiff's claims. The court found that the plaintiff's letter constituted a "terminating event" under the company's operating agreement, justifying his ejection without compensation. The court also ruled that the business judgment rule protected the company's decision to remove the plaintiff, as it was made in the best interests of the company. The plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing were all dismissed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appellate court held that the business judgment rule applied, as the company's decision to eject the plaintiff was rational and made in good faith. The court also found that the plaintiff's loss of his shares was not an illegal forfeiture, as it was reasonably related to the harm his actions could have caused the company. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding procedural irregularities and the valuation of his shares, concluding that the company's actions were justified and lawful. View "Tuli v. Specialty Surgical Center of Thousand Oaks, LLC" on Justia Law

Following an accident, Jeremy Marchek sued his auto insurer, United Services Automobile Association (USAA), claiming that the company breached the terms of the policy it issued to him. Marchek argued that USAA wrongfully failed to compensate him for sales taxes and mandatory fees necessary to purchase a replacement vehicle after USAA declared his vehicle to be beyond repair. USAA paid Marchek the pre-accident value of his vehicle minus a deductible but did not include taxes and fees in the payment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed Marchek’s complaint, ruling that USAA was not contractually obligated to compensate him for taxes and fees. The district court found that the insurance policy did not require USAA to cover these additional costs when calculating the actual cash value (ACV) of the vehicle.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plain language of the insurance policy plausibly requires USAA to compensate Marchek for the sales taxes and mandatory fees necessary to purchase a replacement vehicle. The court found that the policy’s definition of ACV, which is “the amount that it would cost, at the time of loss, to buy a comparable vehicle,” does not unambiguously exclude taxes and fees. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether USAA breached the contract by not including these costs in its payment to Marchek. View "Marchek v. United Services Automobile Association" on Justia Law

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for a new vehicle, which later exhibited multiple defects. Despite several repair attempts, the issues persisted. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking various forms of relief including replacement or restitution, damages, and attorney fees.The case proceeded to trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where the jury found the defendant liable and awarded the plaintiff damages. However, the jury did not find the defendant’s violation to be willful, thus no civil penalties were awarded. Subsequently, both parties filed motions regarding costs and attorney fees. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, limiting the plaintiff to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and awarding the defendant post-offer costs based on a prior settlement offer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court addressed two main issues: whether a section 998 offer consisting of two simultaneous offers is valid, and whether an offer that promises to pay for statutory categories of damages with disputes resolved by a third party is sufficiently certain. The court concluded that simultaneous offers are generally invalid under section 998 due to the uncertainty they create for the trial court in determining whether the judgment is more favorable than the offer. However, since only one of the defendant’s two offers was invalid, the remaining valid offer was operative. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff was limited to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and the defendant was entitled to post-offer costs. View "Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC" on Justia Law

Torrey Kath brought a personal injury lawsuit against Michael Prochnow and Prochnow Farms, alleging that Prochnow moved a semi-truck while Kath was underneath, causing significant injury. Kath and Prochnow entered into a Miller-Shugart agreement, where Prochnow accepted damages, and Kath agreed to collect solely from Prochnow’s insurers. The case was dismissed with prejudice after a stipulation of dismissal was filed.Kath then filed a declaratory judgment action against Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Company (FUMIC), which insured Prochnow under a farm liability policy. Kath sought declarations that the policy covered his injuries and that the Miller-Shugart agreement was reasonable and binding on FUMIC. The District Court of Stutsman County granted Kath summary judgment on the coverage issue, interpreting the policy’s motor vehicle exclusion as not applying to the coverage added by a farm employer liability endorsement.FUMIC moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to indemnify Prochnow because the personal injury action had been dismissed with prejudice. While this motion was pending, Kath and Prochnow successfully moved to vacate the dismissal and entered a $2 million judgment against Prochnow, to be paid solely by FUMIC. The district court then denied FUMIC’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the judgment in the personal injury action rendered FUMIC’s motion moot and granted summary judgment in favor of Kath on the second count of his complaint.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the policy’s motor vehicle exclusion applied to Kath’s injuries, and thus, the policy did not provide coverage. The court concluded that the endorsement did not supersede the motor vehicle exclusion and that the policy, when read as a whole, excluded coverage for injuries related to the use of motor vehicles. View "Kath v. Farmers Union Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Debra Stevenson and Eugene Smith co-own a property for which Stevenson initially took out a loan from Wells Fargo. After defaulting, she refinanced with Fremont Investment & Loan, which paid off the Wells Fargo loan. Stevenson defaulted again and filed for bankruptcy. HSBC Bank, as Fremont's successor, sought to enforce its interest in the property through equitable subrogation, claiming the right to stand in Wells Fargo's position.In bankruptcy court, HSBC was found to be the holder of the note and entitled to equitable subrogation for the amount used to pay off the Wells Fargo loan. The federal district court adopted this decision, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that HSBC could enforce its interest despite Fremont's knowledge of Smith's co-ownership and refusal to sign the loan documents.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment to HSBC. The court held that Stevenson and Smith were collaterally estopped from relitigating issues decided in federal court, including HSBC's standing and entitlement to equitable subrogation. The court also rejected their Truth in Lending Act (TILA) rescission argument, as it had been previously litigated and decided against them. The court affirmed the Superior Court's ruling, finding no genuine issues of material fact and that HSBC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Stevenson v. HSBC Bank USA" on Justia Law

Hawaiian Airlines entered into a contract with Boeing, agreeing to indemnify Boeing for any taxes incurred on maintenance supply parts sold to Hawaiian. Boeing did not remit general excise taxes (GET) on these sales, claiming an exemption under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 237-24.9. The Hawai'i Department of Taxation audited Boeing for tax years 2013-2018 and proposed disallowing the exemption. Boeing received a Notice of Proposed Assessment (NOPA) in May 2021, and Hawaiian paid $1,624,482.75 under protest, then filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that GET was not owed and a refund of its payment.The Tax Appeal Court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling it lacked jurisdiction because there was no "final agency decision" or "actual dispute" at the time of Hawaiian's payment. The court found that the inter-office memorandum, email, and closing letter from the Department did not constitute formal administrative decisions. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the dismissal, citing the need for a formal administrative decision to create an actual dispute under HRS § 40-35.The Supreme Court of Hawai'i reviewed the case and held that a NOPA qualifies as a "formal administrative decision" sufficient to create an actual dispute for HRS § 40-35 jurisdiction purposes. The court found that the NOPA contained a demand and determination of tax liability, thus meeting the requirements set forth in Grace Business Development Corp. v. Kamikawa. The court vacated the tax court's dismissal and the ICA's judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Tax Appeal of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Department of Taxation" on Justia Law