Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a limited liability company (LLC), FS Medical Supplies, entered into a contract to supply personal protective equipment and related products to TannerGAP, Inc. and Tanner Pharma UK Limited for distribution. FS Medical later discovered that the Tanner entities had contracted directly with one of its suppliers, prompting FS Medical to sue for breach of contract.Initially, FS Medical brought suit in California state court, but the defendants removed the case to federal court, where it was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. FS Medical then filed two actions in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3). FS Medical alleged that its members were citizens of Texas and California, and later acknowledged that one member was a citizen of China. The defendants included both U.S. citizens domiciled in North Carolina and a United Kingdom corporation. After limited discovery and amendment of the complaint, the district court, following a magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the presence of both domestic and foreign members in the plaintiff LLC destroyed diversity jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that, under § 1332(a)(3), complete diversity requires at least one U.S. citizen on each side of the action. Because FS Medical, as an LLC, had both domestic and foreign members at the time the complaints were filed, and because there were foreign defendants as well, the suit was not between “citizens of different States.” The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal and declined to grant relief under North Carolina’s savings statute, finding it lacked jurisdiction to do so. View "FS Medical Supplies, LLC v. Tanner Pharma UK Limited" on Justia Law

T&T Management, Inc. operated a Country Inn & Suites hotel in Port Orange, Florida, under a 15-year license agreement that restricted the franchisor and others from operating hotels using the Country Inn & Suites marks within a defined area. In 2016, Radisson acquired the Country brand, and in 2022, Choice Hotels International purchased the brand from Radisson, assuming all obligations under the license agreement. Prior to acquiring the Country brand, Choice had licensed Sunshine Fund Port Orange, LLC to operate a WoodSpring Suites hotel within the protected area. T&T argued that this violated its license agreement, which it claimed protected it from all competing branded hotels operated or licensed by Choice in the area, and that the agreement’s definition of “Marks” included the WoodSpring mark.T&T initially brought suit in Florida, but after procedural rulings, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. After amending its complaint multiple times—including to reflect its sale of the Country-branded hotel—T&T alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference. The district court dismissed the third amended complaint for failure to state a claim and denied further leave to amend, finding no good cause for additional amendments.Before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, T&T contended that the district court erred in interpreting the contract, dismissing its claims, and denying further amendment. The Eighth Circuit held that, under Florida law, the agreement unambiguously permitted Choice to license non-Country-branded hotels, such as WoodSpring Suites, within the protected area. It affirmed the dismissal of T&T’s breach of contract and good faith claims, and also found the tortious interference claims insufficient because T&T failed to allege a breach or a non-speculative business expectancy. The appellate court also upheld the denial of further leave to amend due to lack of diligence. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "T&T Management, Inc. v. Choice Hotels Int'l" on Justia Law

A South Dakota general partnership, along with two individual partners, claimed they had made a series of loans exceeding $1 million to a corporation run by family members during a period when that corporation was engaged in costly litigation. The loans, according to the partnership, were informally made and not fully documented by promissory notes. After the corporation prevailed in its lawsuit and collected on a judgment, the partnership brought action to recover the loaned amounts. The defendants acknowledged receiving some funds but argued those had been repaid and contended that other claimed loan balances were fictitious.The Second Judicial Circuit Court in Lincoln County, South Dakota, oversaw the trial. The jury found in favor of the partnership, awarding $849,550 in damages. The court refused to instruct the jury on the statute of frauds, as requested by the defendants, and also declined their proposed instruction regarding the requirement to prove contract damages with reasonable certainty. After trial, the court denied the partnership’s request for prejudgment interest, citing the absence of a jury finding on the date of loss.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It held that whether a writing satisfies the statute of frauds is a question of law, not fact, and that the emails and testimony presented were sufficient to satisfy the evidentiary requirements of the statute. Moreover, the court determined that judicial estoppel precluded the defendants from denying the indebtedness after previously acknowledging the same loans as part of their damages claim in earlier litigation. The court found no abuse of discretion in the damages instruction given and concluded that any error was non-prejudicial. Finally, it held that the plaintiffs had waived their right to prejudgment interest by not securing a jury finding on the date of loss. The judgment was affirmed. View "Fischer v. Fischer-Olson" on Justia Law

An energy company, seeking to address disposal challenges associated with wastewater from its hydraulic fracturing operations, engaged a water technology firm to design and construct a specialized treatment facility. The two sides entered into a series of agreements, culminating in a comprehensive contract for the facility’s construction. Before this final contract was executed, the water technology firm discovered that its design would not meet the energy consumption requirements critical to the energy company, but did not disclose this information. The firm also failed to reveal risks associated with a proposed design change that could affect the quality of the facility’s waste byproduct. Relying on the firm’s representations, the energy company signed the contract and later approved the design change. When the facility failed to meet contractual specifications—producing unusable waste and exceeding power limits—the energy company terminated the contract and sued for breach and fraud.The case was tried in the Denver District Court, which found that the water technology firm had fraudulently induced the energy company into signing the contract by concealing and failing to disclose material facts. The trial court held that the economic loss rule did not bar the fraud claim because the misconduct occurred prior to contract formation. The court awarded the energy company substantial damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, though it reasoned that the contracts were interrelated but found an independent tort duty still existed.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed whether the economic loss rule barred the fraud claim. The Court held that the interrelated contracts doctrine does not apply when each contract is a stand-alone transaction and that the fraudulent conduct occurred before the governing contract was executed, inducing its formation. Therefore, the economic loss rule does not bar the fraud claim. The judgment was affirmed, and the case was remanded for a determination of reasonable attorney fees. View "Veolia Water Techs. v. Antero Treatment LLC" on Justia Law

A business entity, through its principal, attempted to lease a commercial property in Kansas City, Missouri, from the property owner’s company. Both parties signed a lease document; however, the space for the “Commencement Date” was left blank. After negotiations soured—particularly following concerns from neighboring business owners about the potential use and branding of the property—the landlord refused to provide the tenant with keys or possession. The tenant did not provide a requested business plan and, shortly thereafter, the landlord leased the property to a different tenant. The would-be tenant had already paid a security deposit and incurred expenses in anticipation of opening its business.The tenant company filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, raising claims including breach of contract and racial discrimination. Several months later, after the property was re-leased, the tenant moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to compel the landlord to grant possession. At the hearing, the tenant conceded its request for injunctive relief was based solely on the breach of contract claim. The district court denied both the motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for reconsideration, finding the lease failed to satisfy Missouri’s statute of frauds because the commencement date—an essential term—was not included in the writing, and further finding the tenant failed to show irreparable harm.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of both motions. The Eighth Circuit held that, under Missouri law, a lease for longer than one year must include all essential terms, including the commencement date, in a signed writing, and that parol evidence cannot supply missing essential terms. Because the lease lacked the commencement date, the tenant failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration. View "Euphoric, LLC v. 4128 Broadway, LLC" on Justia Law

After her property experienced water intrusion, a homeowner sued her neighbor, whose property was the source of the problem. The neighbor, in defending the lawsuit, hired a construction consulting firm to inspect both properties and to create an expert report recommending repairs. The recommendations from this report formed the basis of a settlement between the homeowner and her neighbor, and repairs were performed accordingly. After the settlement and repairs, the water intrusion problem recurred, leading the homeowner to file a new lawsuit against the consulting firm, alleging that its recommendations were negligent and defective.In the Superior Court of Orange County, the consulting firm filed an anti-SLAPP motion, asserting that its actions were protected as statements made in the course of litigation. The trial court granted the motion concerning certain claims, but denied it for claims of negligence and breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary, reasoning these arose from conduct rather than protected statements. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal previously affirmed the trial court’s partial denial, finding that the remaining claims were not based on protected activity, and remanded for further proceedings on those claims.Upon remand, the consulting firm moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that the litigation privilege under California Civil Code section 47(b) barred the remaining claims. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the consulting firm. The court held that the litigation privilege applied because the firm’s formulation of repair recommendations was necessarily related to a communicative act (the expert report) prepared in the course of litigation, and thus barred the homeowner’s negligence and third-party beneficiary claims. The judgment in favor of the consulting firm was affirmed. View "Fazel v. Pete Fowler Construction Services" on Justia Law

Technicians employed by the defendant performed installation, maintenance, inspection, testing, repair, and replacement of fire alarms, fire sprinklers, and security system equipment under contracts with public entities in New York. These contracts varied in their language regarding the payment of prevailing wages: some disclaimed any obligation to pay prevailing wages, some were silent, and a few expressly based payment on prevailing wage rates. All contracts included a clause providing that any action against the defendant had to be brought within one year of accrual.The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging, among other claims, that they were owed prevailing wages as third-party beneficiaries of the contracts. The District Court granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the breach of contract claims were time-barred by the contractual limitation period, that the contracts did not expressly entitle plaintiffs to prevailing wages, and, in the alternative, that plaintiffs were not covered by the prevailing wage law. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that plaintiffs were covered by Labor Law § 220 but certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the implicit inclusion of prevailing wage promises in public works contracts and the enforceability of shortened contractual limitation periods.The New York Court of Appeals held that the promise to pay prevailing wages is implicit in every public works contract covered by Labor Law § 220, regardless of whether that promise appears in the contract’s text. As a result, employees may bring third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims to enforce the prevailing wage requirement. The Court further held that contractual agreements to shorten the statute of limitations for such claims are unenforceable. The Court answered the first certified question in the affirmative and the second in the negative. View "Walton v Comfort Sys. USA (Syracuse), Inc." on Justia Law

A commercial meat supplier delivered frozen meat products to a distributor over a series of transactions, each accompanied by an invoice. The distributor did not pay all of the invoices, claiming that some of the meat was spoiled, while the supplier insisted that the distributor simply failed to pay what was owed and invented the spoiled-meat justification later. The supplier sued for breach of contract and, alternatively, for quantum meruit (an equitable claim for the value of goods or services provided), seeking payment for the unpaid invoices. The distributor counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging damages from the spoiled meat.At trial in a Texas district court, the jury was asked whether the distributor failed to comply with the agreements to pay for the meat and answered no. However, the jury found in favor of the supplier on its quantum meruit claim and awarded damages. The jury found that a reasonable attorney’s fee for the supplier’s attorneys was $0. The trial court entered judgment for the supplier on the quantum meruit claim and awarded the supplier its requested attorney’s fees, disregarding the jury’s finding. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on both quantum meruit and attorney’s fees.The Supreme Court of Texas concluded that the supplier’s provision of meat was covered by express agreements between the parties and, as a matter of law, quantum meruit recovery is barred when a valid contract governs the subject matter. Because the supplier was not entitled to recover in quantum meruit, it also could not recover attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the relevant portions of the court of appeals’ judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of the distributor. View "CHAMPION FOOD SERVICE, INC. v. PROALAMO FOODS, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Office of the Special Deputy Receiver (OSD), an Illinois non-profit that manages receiverships for insolvent insurance companies, purchased a Financial Institution Bond from Hartford Fire Insurance Company. The bond included coverage for computer systems fraud and for electronic mail initiated transfer fraud, subject to certain exclusions. Hackers infiltrated OSD’s Chief Financial Officer’s email account via a spear phishing attack, impersonated the CFO, and sent fraudulent instructions to other OSD employees, resulting in unauthorized wire transfers and a loss of nearly $4 million.OSD filed claims with both Hartford and another insurer. Hartford denied coverage, asserting that an exclusion in the bond applied to the loss. OSD sued both insurers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking declaratory relief and alleging breach of contract. The district court granted Hartford’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the policy’s exclusion for losses resulting from fraudulent instructions sent to OSD by email applied, and denied the other insurer’s motion. OSD later voluntarily dismissed its claims against the second company, and judgment was entered.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the exclusion in Rider 17 of the Hartford bond unambiguously barred coverage for losses resulting from fraudulent email instructions sent to OSD—even if the sender was impersonating an internal employee—because the exclusion focused on the recipient, not the sender. The court found no ambiguity or conflict between the exclusion and other coverage provisions, and concluded that OSD’s losses fell outside the scope of coverage. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of OSD’s claims against Hartford. View "Office of the Special Deputy Receiver v Hartford Fire Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The Incorporated Village of Freeport and Freeport Plaza West, LLC entered into a contract for the purchase and development of several parcels of land. The agreement stipulated that the closing would occur within 30 days after Freeport Plaza West received all required approvals. The Village alleged that Freeport Plaza West obtained the necessary approvals but failed to close on the property within the contractual timeframe. In response, Freeport Plaza West filed a counterclaim, alleging that the Village had effectively breached the contract by forcing a premature closing and refusing to accept necessary development documentation. Importantly, Freeport Plaza West did not file a notice of claim with the Village regarding its counterclaim.After the Village brought suit for breach of contract, Freeport Plaza West answered and asserted its counterclaim. The Village, in turn, raised as a defense that Freeport Plaza West had failed to satisfy all conditions precedent, including the statutory notice of claim requirement under CPLR 9802. Nearly a year and a half into the litigation and shortly before the scheduled trial, the Village moved to dismiss the counterclaim for the lack of a timely notice of claim. Supreme Court denied the motion, applying equitable estoppel against the Village due to its litigation conduct and finding no prejudice from the absence of formal notice. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the Village’s actions did not amount to misleading conduct warranting equitable estoppel and dismissed the counterclaim.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. The Court held that CPLR 9802’s notice of claim requirement applies strictly to contract actions against villages, including counterclaims, and that equitable estoppel against a municipality is only warranted in rare and unusual circumstances involving misconduct or misleading behavior, which were not present here. The failure to file a notice of claim barred Freeport Plaza West’s counterclaim. View "Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Freeport Plaza W., LLC" on Justia Law