Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

This case involves a dispute among business partners regarding the calculation and distribution of administrative fees earned from the sale of shares in a jointly managed investment fund. Prospect Capital Management L.P. (“Prospect”) acted as the fund administrator, while Stratera Holdings, LLC (“Stratera”) and Destra Capital Managers LLC (“Destra”) were entitled to share in fees depending on how fund shares were issued, including through a dividend reinvestment program (“DRIP”). After a change in sub-wholesaler, ambiguity arose in the contract language about whether certain DRIP shares—specifically, those issued by Stratera’s predecessor, Provasi—should be included in fee calculations. Prospect excluded these shares, reducing the amount paid to Stratera and Destra.Stratera and Destra initiated arbitration under the contract’s dispute resolution clause. The arbitration panel’s initial “Interim Award” found that Prospect had breached the contract by excluding DRIP shares for which Destra served as sub-wholesaler, but the award’s language left unclear whether this ruling applied to DRIP shares issued earlier by Provasi. When the parties could not agree on the scope of the award, the panel issued a revised interim award clarifying that fees were owed for DRIP shares issued by both Provasi and Destra. Prospect then petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to vacate the revised award, arguing that the arbitrators had unlawfully revisited a final decision in violation of the functus officio doctrine. The District Court rejected this claim, finding that the ambiguity exception to functus officio permitted the arbitrators’ clarification.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The court held that the ambiguity exception to the functus officio doctrine applied because the interim award was susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the panel acted within its authority in clarifying its award. View "Prospect Capital Management LP v. Stratera Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

A driver insured by a reciprocal insurance exchange rear-ended another individual while stopped at a red light, causing injuries. The injured party, represented by counsel, made a prelitigation offer to settle her bodily injury claim against the insured driver for the “total available policy limit of $100,000, or less,” requiring acceptance in writing by a specified date and a copy of the policy declarations. The insurer responded within the deadline, accepting the offer and providing the requested documentation, confirming the policy’s bodily injury liability limit was $15,000 per person. The injured party refused to execute the settlement documents and instead pursued litigation against the insured driver.The insurer then filed a separate action against the injured party for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and specific performance, resulting in consolidation of the two cases in the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. The insurer moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication on its declaratory relief claim, arguing that a binding settlement agreement had been formed when it accepted the settlement offer according to its terms. The Superior Court denied this motion.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case on a petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court held that the insurer’s timely acceptance of the offer, along with provision of the policy declarations, satisfied all conditions of the injured party’s settlement demand and created a binding settlement agreement. The court rejected arguments that the settlement was contingent on an asset declaration or that subsequent events nullified the agreement. The appellate court granted the petition, directing the trial court to vacate its denial and instead grant summary adjudication for the insurer on the declaratory relief claim. The insurer was also awarded its costs. View "Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In 2018, BAPTKO, Inc., wholly owned by Robert Kupper, agreed to sell two car dealerships in North Dakota to Foundation Automotive Corp. The agreement included provisions regarding inventory management prior to closing, contingent earnout payments based on dealership performance, and an attorney’s fees clause for prevailing parties in disputes. Foundation Automotive Corp. later assigned its interests to two LLCs connected to each dealership. After the sale, relations deteriorated: the LLCs sued Kupper and related entities for breach of non-compete and tortious interference, while BAPTKO counterclaimed for unpaid earnout payments, asserting the performance targets had been met.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota consolidated the actions. It granted partial summary judgment for the Kupper parties, holding that the Foundation parties were obligated to make the earnout payments. The district court denied summary judgment on the amount of damages, finding factual disputes. The Foundation parties conceded nonpayment but argued they were excused due to BAPTKO’s alleged prior breaches, particularly regarding inventory management. The district court rejected this argument, determining that any such breaches did not excuse performance but might affect the damages offset. At trial, the jury found BAPTKO had not breached the agreement. The district court also awarded attorney’s fees to BAPTKO, including amounts spent defending Kupper personally, and denied the Foundation parties’ post-trial motions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that the district court properly granted partial summary judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could find BAPTKO’s alleged breaches defeated the object of the agreement. The appellate court also held that limitations on expert testimony and jury instructions were not abuses of discretion, and that the attorney’s fee award, including amounts for Kupper’s defense, was supported by the agreement and not an abuse of discretion. View "FA ND Chev, LLC v. BAPTKO, Inc." on Justia Law

The Maine Department of Health and Human Services conducted a competitive bidding process in 2023 to award contracts for medical nonemergency transportation services for MaineCare and Children’s Health Insurance Program recipients. Penquis C.A.P., Inc., previously the incumbent provider for two regions, submitted bids for four regions but lost to ModivCare Solutions, LLC, which received the highest scores and was awarded contracts for all eight transit regions. Penquis CAP challenged the awards for four regions, asserting irregularities in the evaluation process and seeking access to additional DHHS records through Freedom of Access Act requests.Penquis CAP first pursued administrative appeals before a Department of Administrative and Financial Services (DAFS) appeal committee, which held a hearing and ultimately validated the contract awards to ModivCare. Penquis CAP then sought judicial review in the Superior Court (Penobscot County), which was transferred to the Business and Consumer Docket. After briefing and oral argument, the Business and Consumer Docket affirmed the appeal committee’s decision, finding no legal or procedural error in the bidding and award process. Penquis CAP subsequently appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which stayed the contract awards pending appeal.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the administrative record for errors of law, unsupported factual findings, or abuse of discretion. The Court held that Penquis CAP was not entitled under statute or the Administrative Procedure Act to delay the hearing until all FOAA requests were fulfilled, nor to obtain evidence beyond what it already possessed. The Court found no clear and convincing evidence justifying invalidation of the contract awards, and affirmed the judgment, lifting the stay on the awards. View "Penquis C.A.P., Inc. v. Department of Administrative and Financial Services" on Justia Law

Two long-term employees of a township senior center lost their jobs when a newly elected board, led by a candidate from the opposing political party, reorganized the center's leadership structure. The plaintiffs, both Republicans, had campaigned for the losing Republican candidate in the local election. After the incoming Democratic supervisor and board took office, they voted to eliminate the plaintiffs' positions as part of a broader reorganization, creating new roles and appointing others, including one individual who had also supported the Republican candidate.After their terminations, the plaintiffs filed suit in Illinois state court, naming the township and certain officials as defendants. They alleged, among other claims, that their First Amendment rights had been violated because their political activity was a motivating factor in their dismissals. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Following partial dismissal of claims, only the First Amendment retaliation and breach of implied contract claims against the township remained. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the township, finding plaintiffs had not shown that their political activity was a motivating factor in the terminations, nor had they rebutted the township's evidence of legitimate reasons for the reorganization.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had not produced sufficient evidence that their political activity motivated their terminations. The court found that the undisputed evidence showed neither the new supervisor nor the trustees knew of the plaintiffs' political involvement, and there were valid, non-retaliatory reasons for the personnel changes. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the township. View "Fox v DuPage Township" on Justia Law

A Nebraska auction company and its former independent sales representative (ISR) entered into a written agreement containing restrictive covenants, including a noncompete clause, and an arbitration provision governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. The ISR terminated the relationship and began working for a competitor, allegedly violating the noncompete clause. The auction company sued for breach of contract, injunctive relief, and tortious interference, seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the ISR’s competitive activities.The District Court for Hall County compelled arbitration for the breach of contract and tortious interference claims but retained jurisdiction to decide the request for injunctive relief, ultimately granting a temporary injunction against the ISR. While the arbitration was pending, the ISR sought to dissolve the injunction and later moved for damages, costs, and attorney fees under Nebraska’s injunction undertaking statute after the arbitrator ruled the restrictive covenants unenforceable and awarded certain damages to the ISR. The arbitrator also found that additional damages based on the invalidation of the restrictive covenants were speculative and not recoverable. The District Court confirmed the arbitral award and denied the ISR’s subsequent motion for additional damages, reasoning that the arbitral award was preclusive as to all damages except attorney fees and expenses.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, due to the scope of the arbitration and the confirmation of the arbitrator’s award, the ISR could not recover further damages for the wrongful injunction that overlapped with claims already addressed in arbitration. However, the Court held that attorney fees and expenses related to resisting the issuance and seeking dissolution of the wrongful injunction were not foreclosed by the arbitration and should be awarded. The Supreme Court modified the lower court’s judgment to include $11,000 in such fees and otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Big Iron Auction Co. v. Harder Capital" on Justia Law

Two software development companies became involved in a dispute after a UK bank, Metro Bank PLC, hired one company, Arkeyo LLC, to create software for its coin-counting machines. Years later, as Arkeyo’s product became outdated, Metro Bank engaged Saggezza UK (a subsidiary of Saggezza, Inc.) to build replacement software. During development, Metro Bank provided Saggezza with an Arkeyo-operated touchscreen computer for reference. Arkeyo later alleged that Saggezza, Inc. infringed its copyrights and trade secrets, interfered with its contract and business relationship with Metro Bank, and converted Arkeyo’s property.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for Saggezza, Inc. on all claims, ruling that Arkeyo did not show Saggezza, Inc. was responsible for the alleged infringement or tortious acts—these, if they occurred, were committed by Saggezza UK, which was not a defendant. The district court also denied Arkeyo’s motions for sanctions and for reconsideration based on purportedly new evidence, and it awarded attorney’s fees to Saggezza, Inc. under federal statutes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that Arkeyo’s copyright claims failed because there was no evidence of copying. The trade secret claims failed due to Arkeyo’s public disclosure of its software and the generic nature of the alleged secrets. The tortious interference claims were rejected because Saggezza’s competitive conduct was not “wrongful” under Illinois law, and the conversion claim failed since Arkeyo did not own or demand the property. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of sanctions, the denial of reconsideration, and the award of attorney’s fees. View "Arkeyo LLC v Saggezza, Inc." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on mineral rights to a property in McKenzie County, North Dakota. In 1938, the county acquired the property from Ellen Stole through foreclosure. In 1948, the county leased mineral rights—the “County Lease”—to Thomas Dorough, granting extraction rights in exchange for royalties. Hans Stole, Ellen’s son, redeemed the property in 1951, terminating the county’s ownership, and in 1954 ratified the County Lease as it pertained to his interest. There has been continuous mineral production since 1957. The Rolfsruds acquired the property in 2002 and entered new leases in 2007 and 2019—the latter (“Rolfsrud Lease”) granting higher royalties and naming Davis Exploration as lessee. Continental Resources operated under both leases, ultimately paying royalties at the lower County Lease rate. The Rolfsruds, joined by Davis Exploration, sued Continental and Petro-Hunt, asserting the Rolfsrud Lease controlled the property and raising several claims, including breach, quiet title, and declaratory relief.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court relied on Ulrich v. Amerada Petroleum Corporation and Holbeck v. Hull from the North Dakota Supreme Court, finding the County Lease had priority. The court determined the Rolfsrud Lease was a “top lease” and quieted title in favor of Petro-Hunt’s interest under the County Lease.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. It held the County Lease became voidable—not void—upon redemption, and Hans’s ratification was valid as to the property he owned. The court further held continuous production under the County Lease sustained its force, despite no Pugh clause or lack of production on the specific property. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding the County Lease controls the subject property and the Rolfsrud Lease is a top lease. View "Rolfsrud v. Continental Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

Premier contracted Pinnacle to provide labor and materials for flooring in three homes, with each subcontract containing a clause allowing Premier to recover attorney fees in the event of Pinnacle’s default. Pinnacle sued Premier, alleging breach of contract for unpaid work, attaching the relevant subcontracts as exhibits. Premier counterclaimed, asserting that Pinnacle breached the subcontracts due to defective work, and requested attorney fees. Premier’s counterclaim referenced paragraphs from Pinnacle’s complaint, which incorporated the contracts, but did not explicitly state the basis for its attorney fees request. Pre-trial, Premier’s counsel informed Pinnacle’s counsel by email that the attorney fees request was based on Section 8(b) of the subcontracts, and the parties agreed to bifurcate the fees issue.The Circuit Court of Virginia found for Premier on its counterclaim regarding the breach, but denied Premier’s request for attorney fees, holding that Premier had not sufficiently identified the basis for its fee request in the counterclaim as required by Rule 3:25(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Premier appealed, and the Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed, concluding that the incorporation of the subcontracts and the attached exhibits were sufficient to put Pinnacle on notice of the contractual basis for the attorney fees claim.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case de novo and held that Rule 3:25(b) is a pleading requirement, not merely a notice requirement. The court determined that Premier failed to affirmatively identify the basis for its attorney fees request in its counterclaim, and that mere incorporation by reference of the contracts was insufficient. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s denial of attorney fees to Premier, entering final judgment for Pinnacle on the attorney fees issue. View "Pinnacle Flooring Solutions v. Premier Homes Group" on Justia Law

A company that operated as a fixed-base operator at a municipal airport sued the city that owns and operates the airport. The company alleged that the city provided more favorable lease terms and selectively excused certain regulatory requirements for a competing operator, thereby disadvantaging the plaintiff. The city’s leases with the plaintiff and with its competitor differed in several respects, including rent abatement periods, required capital investments, and compliance with fuel storage and insurance requirements. The plaintiff argued that these differences, along with the city’s alleged failure to strictly enforce its own policies and federal grant assurances, constituted both an equal protection violation under a “class-of-one” theory and a breach of contract.The lawsuit was originally filed in Illinois state court, but the city removed it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff amended its complaint to drop claims against the competitor and proceeded against the city for breach of contract and equal protection violations. After discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for the city on both claims, finding that the class-of-one theory did not apply in the context of government contracting and that the contractual documents did not incorporate the policies or grant assurances as enforceable obligations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that a class-of-one claim under the Equal Protection Clause is not available where a company challenges the terms of its lease or its competitor’s treatment under a different lease, absent any class-based discrimination. The court also held that the city’s policy and grant assurances were not incorporated into the plaintiff’s lease as enforceable contract terms, nor did the law provide a private right to enforce them in this context. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the city. View "Joliet Avionics, Inc. v City of Aurora" on Justia Law