An Asset Purchase Agreement provided that the sellers could receive variable payments (Earn-Out Consideration) if the post-merger company (IAS) achieved specific benchmarks. Section 2.6(c) specifies that IAS had to provide the sellers with the computation for each period, to become final unless they submitted a “notice of disagreement.” Any disagreement would be settled according to Section 2.3(e),” which refers to resolution by an accounting firm. Section 11.17, however, directs the parties generally to use non-binding mediation, followed by litigation if mediation fails.IAS determined that the company did not meet its targets. The sellers claim that IAS intentionally prevented the company from hitting its targets. Negotiations failed. The sellers sued for breach of contract and tortious interference; later, they filed a notice of disagreement and sought a declaration that the lawsuit was outside the scope of sections 2.3(e) and 2.6(d). IAS sought to compel arbitration under 2.3(e). The district court held that the Agreement contained a valid agreement to arbitrate. An accounting firm subsequently determined that the sellers had no right to Earn-Out Consideration. The district court entered judgment for IAS.The Third Circuit vacated. The Purchase Agreement contains an agreement to submit narrow disputes to an accounting firm for expert determination, not arbitration. Although the statement of IAS’s financial benchmarks becomes final after the expert completes its accounting analysis, the authority to resolve legal questions—like whether IAS violated the duty of good faith— remains with the courts. View "Sapp v. Industrial Action Services LLC" on Justia Law

Bazemore, a Papa John’s delivery driver, sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that the company had under-reimbursed his vehicle expenses. Papa John’s moved to compel arbitration, attaching a declaration from its “Director of People Services” that Papa John’s requires all new employees to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. She asserted that Bazemore signed the agreement electronically on October 10, 2019, by signing in using a user ID and password, then scrolling through the entire agreement and checking a box in order to sign. Bazemore swore under penalty of perjury that he “had never seen” the agreement and that he had seen his manager login for Bazemore and other delivery drivers “to complete training materials” for them. The court denied Bazemore’s request for targeted discovery as to whether he had actually signed the agreement and granted the motion to compel arbitration.The Sixth Circuit reversed. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 4, the party seeking arbitration must prove that such an agreement exists. Kentucky law governs whether Bazemore entered into an agreement and provides that an electronic signature is legally valid only when “made by the action of the person the signature purports to represent”—which is a question of fact. Bazemore’s testimony that he never saw the agreement was enough to create a genuine issue as to whether he signed it. View "Bazemore v. Papa John's U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Boulevard RE Holdings, LLC (Boulevard) sued Mixon Insurance Agency, Inc. (Mixon), alleging breach of contract and negligent procurement of insurance. Mixon moved for summary judgment. The district court granted Mixon’s motion. Boulevard appealed that order. On appeal, Boulevard challenged the district court’s conclusions that Mixon had no duty to know or discover whether Boulevard was a mortgagee under Missouri law and that Mixon’s actions did not cause Boulevard’s alleged damages.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that even assuming that the district court erred in concluding that Mixon did not have a duty to know or discover whether Boulevard was a mortgagee, summary judgment in favor of Mixon was proper because Boulevard cannot show Mixon caused its alleged damages. Noncompliance with the policy, not Mixon’s failure to notify, barred recovery. Therefore, Bell is inapplicable. The district court did not err in granting Mixon’s motion for summary judgment. View "Boulevard RE Holdings, LLC v. Mixon Insurance Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

Esplanade Productions, Inc. sued The Walt Disney Company and affiliated entities (collectively Disney) for breach of an implied-in-fact contract, breach of confidence and unfair competition, alleging Disney had used the creative ideas of Esplanade’s principal, Gary Goldman, in Disney’s animated motion picture Zootopia without compensating Esplanade. The trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of Disney regarding the individual elements of the works and the works as a whole, finding they were not substantially similar as a matter of law. The court overruled Disney’s demurrer as to the title “Zootopia.” The court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Disney, ruling there was no evidence the creators of Disney’s Zootopia had access to Goldman’s work and, even if there was evidence of access, any inference of copying was rebutted by the undisputed evidence a Disney employee had independently created the title “Zootopia.” On appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Disney, Esplanade challenged the trial court’s demurrer ruling and the grant of summary judgment.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that there is simply no evidence that Disney producers would have had reason to discuss an animation project, nor is there evidence that they would have occasion to share that information with those working on Zootopia. Esplanade’s access argument relies solely on speculation and conjecture arising from the fact that some of the individuals involved occasionally provided feedback on one another’s work. That is insufficient as a matter of law to establish access. View "Esplanade Productions v. The Walt Disney Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court denying Hoosier Contractors, LLC's motion for summary judgment, denying Sean Gardner's motion for partial summary judgment, and denying Hoosier's motion to decertify a class of Hoosier's similarly situated customers, holding that Gardner, on behalf of himself and as class representative, lacked standing to bring his counterclaim against Hoosier.When Gardner asked Hoosier to inspect the roof of his home Hoosier made Gardner sign a contract for Hoosier to perform any needed work. When Gardner refused to let Hoosier repair his roof Hoosier brought this action for breach of contract. Gardner filed a counterclaim, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated customers, alleging that the contract violated the Indiana Home Improvement Contractors Act and that the violations were deceptive acts under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. The Supreme Court held (1) Gardner lacked standing to bring his counterclaim against Hoosier, and this disposition mooted the class-action issues; and (2) the court of appeals properly affirmed the denial of Gardner's motion for partial summary judgment as to Hoosier's breach of contract claim. View "Hoosier Contractors, LLC v. Gardner" on Justia Law

Mingtel, a Texas-based company, ordered two batches of computer tablets from Shenzen Synergy Digital, a Chinese company, hoping to resell them through the Home Shopping Network (“HSN”). The first batch bombed on HSN, with customers complaining about slow speeds and flawed screens. Mingtel then rejected the second batch out of hand. Synergy sued for breach of contract; Mingtel countersued, alleging Synergy provided nonconforming goods. The district court sided with Synergy.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court found Mingtel did not examine the tablets as soon as practicable because it failed to inspect them when they arrived in the United States. Instead of testing those capabilities upon the tablets’ arrival in the United States, Mingtel shipped them directly to HSN’s warehouse and examined them only after they were sold and returned by customers. The court explained that it agreed with the district court that, given those facts, Mingtel did not timely inspect the tablets. It follows that Mingtel did not provide Synergy with a notice of nonconformity within a reasonable time. The court wrote that Mingtel was obligated to pay for the tablets and take delivery of them. Because it failed to do so, the district court properly found Mingtel liable. View "Shenzen Synergy Digital v. Mingtel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court enforcing a settlement agreement between Duane Bender and Rebecca Estates, LLC (collectively, Bender) and Stacey Rosman providing for Bender's purchase of Rosman's property near Shepherd, holding that the district court did not err.Bender filed suit against Rosman alleging trespass and tortious interference with contract and seeking to quiet title. Prior to trial, the parties reached a settlement agreement providing for the purchase of Rosman's property by Bender. The district court issued an order enforcing the settlement agreement for the price of $202,000. Bender appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by concluding that Rosman was entitled to specific performance of the settlement agreement. View "Bender v. Rosman" on Justia Law

The parents work for the School District. Through the District, they contracted for a self-funded health insurance plan. The District, not an outside insurer, bears sole financial responsibility for the payment of plan benefits. The District is also the plan administrator and named fiduciary but contracted with United HealthCare to serve as the third-party claims administrator, with the authority to deny or approve claims. The plan is a governmental plan, so the Employee Retirement Income Security Act does not apply, 29 U.S.C. 1003(b)(1). In 2017, daughter Megan—covered under her parents’ policy—suffered a mental health emergency. United approved Megan for 24 days of inpatient treatment and informed the family that it would not approve additional days. Her parents and Megan’s doctors disagreed and appealed internally within United. They elected to continue Megan’s inpatient treatment. They received a final denial of coverage notice, leaving most of Megan’s treatment expenses uncovered.The family sued United for breach of contract, bad faith, punitive damages, and interest under Wisconsin’s prompt pay statute but did not join the District as a defendant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. There was no contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and United. Wisconsin law does not permit them to sue United for tortious bad faith absent contractual privity. Wisconsin’s prompt pay statute applies only to insurers. View "Daniels v. United Healthcare Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Weyerhaeuser NR Company (“NR”) entered into a manufacturing agreement with Simsboro Coating Services, LLC (“Simsboro”). That agreement required Simsboro to acquire commercial general liability insurance, which it obtained from Defendants-Appellees Burlington Insurance Company (“BIC”) and Evanston Insurance Company (“EIC”). It further required that “Weyerhaeuser and its Subsidiaries” be named as additional insureds. However, NR’s parent company, Weyerhaeuser Company (“W. Co.”), was never added to the insurance policies that Simsboro obtained from EIC and BIC. This insurance coverage dispute arose after several personal injury lawsuits were filed against Simsboro and W. Co. in state court. After those lawsuits settled, W. Co. and NR sued BIC and EIC, demanding that they defend and indemnify W. Co. and NR. EIC and BIC then filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions, which were granted by the district court.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Weyerhaeuser’s breach of contract claims. The court concluded that Defendants had no duty to defend or indemnify W. Co. and NR as additional insureds or as third-party beneficiaries to the CGL Policies or Excess Policy. The court explained that it was satisfied that BIC and EIC had no duty to defend W. Co. and NR as thirdparty beneficiaries. The indemnification inquiry, however, is fact intensive and may incorporate extrinsic evidence. The district court explained that because NR is listed on the CGL Policies as an additional insured and the CGL Policies might cover Simsboro’s indemnification obligation arising from the Agreement, NR might be a third-party beneficiary of the policies with respect to indemnification. View "Weyerhaeuser v. Burlington Insurance" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Plaintiff and declaring that the City of Woonsocket improperly terminated Plaintiff's employment with the Woonsocket Police Department in violation of R.I. Gen. Laws 42-28.6-4 of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBOR), holding that there was no error.The order appealed from declared that the city's termination of Plaintiff's employment was unlawful in violation of section 42-28.6-4 of the LEOBOR and that the City must comply with LEOBOR's procedural requirements if it wished to terminate Plaintiff's employment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice properly determined that the City improperly terminated Plaintiff's employment and improperly deprived him of the requisite notice and hearing. View "Sosa v. City of Woonsocket" on Justia Law