Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Two businesses and their principals were involved in the sale of a cigar company. The sale was governed by a written agreement which expressly reserved three registered trademarks for the sellers, and did not mention other closely related marks. After the sale, the buyers’ company launched new cigar products and marketing campaigns referencing the history and reputation of the reserved marks and associated product lines. The sellers objected, claiming infringement of their reserved trademark interests and associated goodwill. When attempts to resolve the dispute failed, the sellers filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit.The first lawsuit was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That court did not address the merits of the trademark claims. Instead, it found that the claims arose out of the sales agreement, which contained a forum selection clause requiring venue in state court in Lawrence County, South Dakota. On that basis, the Florida district court dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds. Subsequently, the buyers initiated a related contract lawsuit in South Dakota state court. The sellers then filed the present lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, asserting only federal Lanham Act claims and omitting the sales agreement from their initial filings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the federal trademark claims arose out of the sales agreement, because resolving them would require analyzing the parties’ contractual allocation of trademark rights and goodwill. The court further held that the forum selection clause in the agreement was valid, mandatory, and enforceable under South Dakota law and federal law, and that it required litigation to proceed in state court in Lawrence County, South Dakota. The Eighth Circuit also concluded that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over federal Lanham Act claims. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Vaughn Boyd v. Deadwood Tobacco Co." on Justia Law

Deque Systems Inc., a company specializing in web accessibility software, developed and registered multiple versions of its DevTools and Rules Help Pages products. To access these, users agreed not to copy, reverse-engineer, or otherwise misuse the software or its documentation. In 2021, BrowserStack, a competing firm, sought to develop its own accessibility testing tools. More than 100 BrowserStack employees created accounts with Deque—agreeing to Deque’s terms—and later, BrowserStack released an Accessibility Toolkit, which Deque alleged was developed by unlawfully copying and reverse-engineering DevTools and the Rules Help Pages.Deque filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming copyright infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and sought injunctive relief, damages, and other remedies. During discovery, Deque repeatedly failed to properly disclose its damages calculations and supporting evidence by the deadlines set in the court’s scheduling order. Despite several opportunities to supplement its disclosures and a late attempt to introduce expert testimony, Deque did not timely provide the required information. BrowserStack moved to exclude Deque’s damages evidence and for summary judgment. The district court granted these motions, finding that Deque’s noncompliance with disclosure rules was neither substantially justified nor harmless, and that Deque presented no evidence supporting injunctive or other relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding all evidence of Deque’s damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) due to repeated and unjustified failures to comply with disclosure requirements. The court also held that summary judgment for BrowserStack was warranted because Deque could not establish entitlement to injunctive, declaratory, or monetary relief. View "Deque Systems Inc. v. Browserstack, Inc." on Justia Law

After divorcing by mutual agreement, the parties executed a property settlement agreement incorporated into their judgment of divorce. The agreement required one party, Louise, to be responsible for a Trustmark National Bank judgment and to hold the other party, Corey, harmless from liability. Subsequently, Trustmark National Bank began garnishing Louise’s wages to satisfy the judgment. Later, Corey discovered a lien from the Trustmark judgment on property he received in the divorce. To complete a sale of that property, Corey paid the remaining balance of the judgment in a lump sum, without notifying Louise of the lien or his payment. Louise learned the judgment had been released but did not know Corey had paid it.Corey then filed a contempt action in Pike County Chancery Court, alleging that Louise willfully violated the property settlement agreement by failing to fully satisfy the debt and reimburse him. After a hearing, the chancellor held Louise in willful contempt, ordering her to pay Corey the amount he had paid to release the lien, plus interest, in a lump sum within ninety days, and to pay $4,000 in attorneys’ fees within sixty days. Louise appealed to the Mississippi Court of Appeals, which affirmed the chancellor’s decision, concluding the agreement required Louise to reimburse Corey and that the chancellor did not clearly err in finding contempt.The Supreme Court of Mississippi granted certiorari. It held that there was no clear and convincing evidence that Louise willfully or deliberately violated the court’s order, as she was paying the debt through wage garnishment and was unaware of Corey’s payment. The court also found the agreement was vague regarding the manner and timing of reimbursement. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered the contempt and attorneys’ fee awards, and remanded to the chancery court to determine the timing and manner of reimbursement. View "Gombako-Amos v. Amos" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on two business partners, Hofer and Paulson, who jointly owned multiple entities, including Imaging Solutions, Inc. (ISI). After several ventures failed, both partners assumed significant individual debts to ISI. In 2016, as Paulson sought to separate his interests, the parties negotiated a "Takeout" through their chief financial officer, Heier. Hofer agreed to assume Paulson’s $1.9 million debt to ISI. Multiple agreements were executed, including an oral assumption agreement, a Master Redemption Agreement, and an ISI Redemption Agreement. Hofer later claimed he was unaware of assuming the debt, citing written assumption agreements with stamped signatures that he alleged were unauthorized.The District Court of Cass County held a bench trial in November 2024. It found the oral assumption agreement valid and enforceable, concluding Hofer had indeed assumed Paulson’s debt as part of the Takeout. The court declared the written assumption agreements invalid, dismissed Hofer’s claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, rescission, and other causes of action, and awarded statutory costs to Paulson and Heier. Paulson’s counterclaims, other than the request for declaratory judgment, were also dismissed.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal and applied a clearly erroneous standard to factual findings. It held the oral assumption agreement was not subject to the statute of frauds under N.D.C.C. § 9-06-04(2) or (5), because the agreement constituted an assumption rather than a guaranty and did not alter terms of repayment. The court found sufficient evidence of mutual consent and affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the validity and enforceability of the oral assumption agreement. View "Hofer v. Paulson" on Justia Law

The case centers on an owner of a waterfront condominium in Newport, Rhode Island, who hired a real estate agency and its agent to find a suitable tenant for his property. The agency presented a candidate, Cynthia Dziurgot, who passed credit and criminal background checks, and the owner entered into a lease with her. After several months, Dziurgot stopped paying rent and refused to vacate the property at the end of the lease, leading to an extended eviction process during the COVID-19 eviction moratorium. The owner later discovered that an internet search would have revealed a history of misconduct and legal issues involving the tenant.The plaintiff filed suit in Newport County Superior Court, alleging breach of contract and negligence by the agency and its agent for allegedly failing to adequately vet the tenant. The plaintiff intended to call a real estate expert to testify that a reasonable real estate professional would have conducted an internet search of the prospective tenant. However, after failing to produce the expert for deposition as agreed in a consent order, the court precluded the plaintiff from offering any expert testimony. The defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that without expert testimony, the plaintiff could not establish the applicable standard of care for real estate professionals. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the standard of care was not within common knowledge and required expert testimony.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The Court held that establishing the standard of care for real estate professionals regarding background searches is not within the common knowledge of laypersons and requires expert testimony. Because the plaintiff was precluded from offering such testimony, summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Hurd v. H & H Real Estate, LLC" on Justia Law

A couple owned a large property in Missoula County, Montana, known as Marshall Mountain, and agreed to sell it to buyers for $2,150,000. The original purchase agreement called for conventional financing, but the parties later amended their agreement to provide for seller financing through a contract for deed, specifying essential terms such as the down payment, interest rate, amortization period, and payment responsibilities. The agreement contained a title contingency, among others, and the buyers approved the preliminary title commitment, which did not include any public access easements.After negotiating drafts of the contract for deed, the sellers’ attorney added numerous new provisions, including a public access easement that would allow various groups to use the property, which was not present in the original agreement or amendment. The buyers objected to this new term, arguing that it changed the character of the property. The sellers refused to accept the buyers’ proposed revisions and terminated the agreement. The buyers filed suit in the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court, alleging breach of contract, among other claims. The District Court found that the executed buy-sell agreement and its amendment constituted an enforceable contract, that the sellers breached its express terms by refusing to close, and that the buyers were damaged, but left other issues for trial.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed de novo whether the parties’ failure to agree to the final terms of the contract for deed rendered the agreement unenforceable. The Court held that the buy-sell agreement and amendment contained all material terms necessary for the enforceable sale of real property, and that the parties did not clearly condition contract formation on later agreement to the contract for deed’s terms. The Court affirmed the District Court’s order granting partial summary judgment to the buyers. View "Melby v. Doering" on Justia Law

This case centers on a car accident between an insured driver, Ortiz, and an uninsured motorist, Camacho, in Colorado. At the time of the collision, Camacho lacked insurance, drove with only a learner’s permit, and was unsupervised. Ortiz, insured by Progressive Direct Insurance Company, sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits from Progressive after the accident. Progressive denied the claim, asserting Ortiz was more than 50% at fault. Ortiz then sued both Camacho for negligence and Progressive for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and unreasonable delay and denial of benefits.Camacho did not respond to the lawsuit, leading the District Court for Garfield County to enter a clerk’s default against her. Progressive had been served but did not object at that time. Progressive’s answer to Ortiz’s complaint included general affirmative defenses but did not specifically assert comparative fault. After Ortiz moved for partial summary judgment, Progressive, for the first time, sought to participate in the liability and damages components of the default judgment hearing. The district court permitted Progressive to contest damages but barred it from contesting liability, finding Progressive had not timely or specifically pleaded its legitimate defenses as required under State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Brekke, 105 P.3d 177 (Colo. 2004). Progressive paid the damages awarded in the default judgment and then proceeded to trial on Ortiz’s bad faith claims, where Ortiz prevailed.On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding Progressive failed to meet the Brekke standards for timely and particularized pleading of its legitimate defenses. The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed whether Brekke’s requirements should be reconsidered. The Court clarified that pleading with particularity under Rule 9(b) is only necessary if fraud or mistake is asserted, and otherwise, insurers must plead legitimate defenses specifically and as soon as practicable. The Court affirmed the appellate judgment, reaffirming Brekke and declining to overrule it. View "Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute arising from an agreement between the State of Georgia and several organizations representing death row inmates. This agreement, made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, established certain conditions that had to be met before the State would resume seeking execution orders for specific inmates. One condition required that a COVID-19 vaccine be “readily available to all members of the public.” The Federal Defender Program, Inc., along with intervenors including Virgil Delano Presnell, Jr., alleged the State breached this agreement by seeking execution orders before this condition was fulfilled, specifically arguing that vaccines were not FDA-approved for children under six months old.The Superior Court of Fulton County previously granted an interlocutory injunction halting the executions, finding the agreement enforceable and the vaccine condition unmet. After further litigation focused on whether the vaccine condition was satisfied, the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The Superior Court concluded that because the FDA had not approved COVID-19 vaccines for children under six months old, the condition remained unsatisfied. It granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and issued a permanent injunction preventing the State from resuming executions until all agreement conditions were met.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia first determined it had jurisdiction, holding that intervention by a prisoner in a suit originally filed by a non-prisoner did not transform the case into a “prisoner action” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Addressing the merits, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s order. It held that the vaccine condition did not require FDA approval for every age group and that the evidence showed COVID-19 vaccines were “readily available” to all members of the public as required by the agreement. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "STATE OF GEORGIA v. FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM, INC." on Justia Law

Morgan Lohman purchased a 25.8-acre property from Stephen and Melinda Dreher in 2022, knowing that the property was subject to a permanent easement held by Cave Bay Community Services, Inc., and an option agreement allowing Cave Bay to purchase the easement area for one dollar once the Drehers’ loans were paid off. After the purchase, the Drehers paid off their loans, Cave Bay attempted to exercise its option, and Lohman refused to comply. Cave Bay, which had already been using the easement for a wastewater facility, filed suit against Lohman for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and specific performance.The District Court of the First Judicial District, Kootenai County, granted summary judgment to Cave Bay solely on the claim for specific performance and awarded attorney fees and costs. The court’s decision was based on its view that there were no disputed material facts and that Cave Bay was entitled to specific performance under the option agreement. The district court did not issue a detailed written opinion and did not resolve whether there was a breach of contract, focusing instead on the remedy of specific performance.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on specific performance as if it were an independent cause of action. The Supreme Court clarified that specific performance is a remedy, not a stand-alone claim, and that entitlement to such a remedy requires first establishing a breach of contract. Because the district court had not ruled on the underlying breach, the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment, vacated the award of attorney fees and costs, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Costs on appeal were awarded to Lohman. View "Cave Bay Community Services v. Lohman" on Justia Law

Two neighbors in Bonner County, Idaho, own adjacent properties—one is lakefront and the other sits directly behind it without lake access. After years of disputes over easements relating to beach, lake, and parking access, the parties entered litigation. During trial, the district court mediated a settlement, which was read into the record and later formalized as a Stipulated Agreement and Order. This agreement outlined the parties’ rights to use the properties and set procedures for mediation and arbitration if further disputes arose.After signing the agreement and a minor modification by the district court, further conflicts emerged, especially regarding the construction and location of one party’s patio, use of a parking easement, a maintenance corridor, and a sprinkler system. Pursuant to the agreement, the unresolved issues were submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the lakefront property owner on all issues, finding that the other party had not complied with the agreement. The dissatisfied party then moved in the District Court of the First Judicial District to vacate the arbitration award, alleging bias and that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority. The district court denied the motion, finding the arbitrator had acted within the scope of his authority.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the district court’s denial. The Court held that the arbitrator’s decisions were within the authority granted by the parties’ agreement and the Idaho Uniform Arbitration Act. The Court found no evidence of bias and concluded the arbitrator had not rewritten or exceeded the terms of the agreement, but rather interpreted and applied it as authorized. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted attorney fees on appeal to the prevailing party under Idaho Code section 12-121. View "Khalsa v. Ridnour" on Justia Law