Land O’Lakes and Commercial Bag entered into a “Packaging Materials Supply Agreement.” Under the Agreement, Land O’Lakes agreed to “make best reasonable efforts” to buy fifteen to twenty percent of its annual polypropylene bag volume from Commercial Bag. Due to concerns with the new manufacturer, however, Land O’Lakes decided to purchase a portion of its polypropylene bags from a domestic manufacturer instead. Land O’Lakes informed Commercial Bag of this decision, and said that it would “result in a discontinuation of the business relationship between Land O’Lakes and Commercial” for polypropylene bags. Land O’Lakes gave Commercial Bag 90 days’ notice that it was terminating the Agreement. Commercial Bag sued, alleging that Land O’Lakes breached the contract by terminating the Agreement without cause, reducing its purchases of polypropylene bags from Commercial Bag, and refusing to pay Commercial Bag’s invoice for plates and artwork. The district court granted summary judgment for Land O’Lakes.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it agreed with the district court that the term “Agreement” in Amendment #2 is not ambiguous. Land O’Lakes was permitted under the contract to terminate the agreement without cause. Amendment #1 added the “without cause” termination provision to Section 2 of the Agreement, and Amendment #2 did not remove that provision. So the “Agreement” to which Amendment #2 referred was necessarily the original agreement as amended by Amendment #1. The court concluded that because Commercial Bag produced no evidence that it actually incurred costs for plates and dies, the district court correctly granted judgment for Land O’Lakes on this claim. View "Commercial Bag Company v. Land O'Lakes, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Travelers Indemnity Company of America, seeking a declaration that an insurance policy between Travelers and the City of Hermantown authorizes up to $2,000,000 in coverage for his tort claim against the city. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff, and Travelers appeals.   The court concluded that the insurance policy limits the amount of Plaintiff’s recovery to $500,000 and therefore reversed the judgment. The court explained that under Minnesota law, a municipality is liable for its torts and those of its employees acting within the scope of their employment. But a municipality may obtain insurance coverage for damages “in excess of the limit of liability imposed by section 466.04,” and procurement of such insurance waives the statutory limit of liability. The court concluded that the insurance policy authorizes coverage up to only $500,000 for Plaintiff’s claim. The policy provides different limits for different types of liabilities. The policy provides a coverage limit of $2,000,000 for claims not subject to the statutory limit set forth in Minn. Stat. Section 466.04. But for claims subject to the statutory limit in Section 466.04, the endorsement expressly limits coverage to $500,000. The substance of this contractual arrangement is no different than if the parties agreed on two separate policies for the two different types of liability. Plaintiff’s claim for injuries arising from an automobile accident in Hermantown is subject to Minnesota’s $500,000 cap on municipal tort liability. View "James Prisk v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America" on Justia Law

The General Council of the Assemblies of God (General Council) governed the Assemblies of God denomination. Its affiliate, the Mississippi District Council for Assemblies of God (District), governed the denomination’s local churches in Mississippi, including Gulf Coast Worship Center (GCWC) in Long Beach. In January 2017, Kevin Beachy, the pastor of GCWC, did not renew his credentials as an ordained pastor with the General Council, ultimately informing the District that he and GCWC intended to disaffiliate from the General Council. The District then informed Beachy that GCWC was being placed under District supervision. On March 19, 2017, the GCWC congregation voted to disaffiliate from the General Council. The congregation voted also to remove a reverter clause from its constitution and bylaws; this clause would have caused the GCWC’s property to revert to the District in the event that GCWC ceased operating as a “church body.” In November 2017, the District filed a chancery court petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Beachy and the GCWC board of trustees, Eddie Kinsey, Andre Mulet, and Kris Williams (collectively, Defendants). Both the District and Defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ motion. Defendants appealed. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court determined that issues concerning disaffiliation, i.e., actions taken at the congregational meeting on March 19, 2017, and whether GCWC was under the District’s supervision, were church-governing matters. Thus, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine deprived the chancellor of jurisdiction to address those claims. But the Supreme Court found genuine issues of material fact remained regarding ownership of property. Therefore, the Court reversed the chancellor’s grant of summary judgment to the District and remanded all issues concerning ownership of property for further proceedings. View "Beachy, et al. v. Mississippi District Council for Assemblies of God" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Buyer in this dispute arising from an ordinary course covenant in an asset purchase agreement, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Buyer.In April 2019, Seller entered into an agreement to sell a casino and hotel to Buyer. The agreement contained an ordinary course covenant requiring Seller to operate its business in the usual manner between the time the agreement was signed and closing. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Seller complied with the Governor's emergency directive mandating closure of all nonessential businesses. The pandemic also affected Buyer's duties under the agreement. Buyer subsequently terminated the agreement and sued Seller for return of the deposit, alleging various contract claims. Seller counterclaimed for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment for Buyer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Seller did not violate the agreement's ordinary course covenant by closing the casino and hotel as mandated by the Governor's emergency directive and was entitled to retain the earnest money deposit. View "Lucky Lucy D LLC v. LGS Casino LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant owned real property located at 3546 Multiview Drive in Los Angeles, California (the property). That year, he executed two deeds of trust against the property. Defendant obtained a HELOC from National City Bank, memorialized in an Equity Reserve Agreement and secured by a deed of trust against the property (collectively, the HELOC agreement). Piedmont Capital, L.L.C. (Piedmont)—a debt buyer—purchased the HELOC debt. Piedmont sued Defendant. Following a demurrer to the original complaint sustained with leave to amend, Piedmont filed the operative first amended complaint for (1) breach of contract, (2) money lent, (3) money had and received, and (4) declaratory relief. Although Piedmont alleged that the full amount of the HELOC debt Defendant owed totaled $186,587.26, Piedmont conceded that it was “not seeking to collect on any [amounts] that were already barred by the applicable statute of limitations at the time [the] action was filed.”   The Second Appellate District reversed. At issue is whether the borrower’s duty to make a monthly payment under such a HELOC agreement indivisible from the borrower’s duty to pay the full amount such that the statute of limitations to recover the full amount begins to run upon the first missed monthly payment. The court held that the duties are divisible. The court explained that the HELOC agreement in this case—by setting a fixed maturity date for the full amount and leaving it to the discretion of the lender whether to accelerate that date—necessarily contemplates that a breach as to a monthly payment does not constitute a breach as to the full amount. View "Piedmont Capital Management, L.L.C. v. McElfish" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's award of $21,643.65 in attorney fees and costs to DAPCPA RPO, a full-service public accounting firm, after the court concluded that Defendant breached a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) and a covenant not to solicit, holding that there was no error.Defendant, a former employee of DAPCPA RPO, formed a new firm and provided services to former DAPCPA RPO clients. DAPCPA RPO filed suit, alleging several claims. The district court granted summary judgment for DAPCPA RPO in part, concluding that the parties' PSA and covenant not to solicit were valid and enforceable contracts and that Defendant breached them. Ultimately, the Court awarded DAPCPA RPO a total of $21,643.65 in attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that DAPCPA RPO was entitled to its fees and costs. View "Hensel v. DAPCPA RPO LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a series of claims in New York state court arising out of a syndicated loan transaction facilitated by Defendants, a group of financial institutions. Plaintiff’s appeal presents two issues. The first issue presented is whether the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 632. The second issue presented is whether the District Court erroneously dismissed Plaintiff’s state-law securities claims on the ground that he failed to plausibly suggest that notes issued as part of the syndicated loan transaction are securities under Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990).   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under the Edge Act because Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. engaged in international or foreign banking as part of the transaction giving rise to this suit. The court also held that the district court did not erroneously dismiss Plaintiff’s state-law securities claims because Plaintiff failed to plausibly suggest that the notes are securities under Reves. View "Kirschner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the underlying complaint filed by Port of Louisville for defamation and professional malfeasance, holding that Port of Louisville had no legally recognized relationship with R. Wayne Stratton, CPA and Jones, Nale & Mattingly PLC (collectively, Stratton), and therefore, Stratton did not owe the Port of Louisville any duty.Louisville and Jefferson County Riverport Authority filed a lawsuit seeking to terminate Port of Louisville's lease based on allegations that Port of Louisville breached the parties' lease The action was stayed while the claims were referred to an arbitrator, who found that Port of Louisville had not breached the lease. Based on what occurred during the arbitration the Port of Louisville brought a complaint against Stratton for defamation and professional malfeasance. The trial court granted Stratton's motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Port of Louisville had no legally recognized relationship with Stratton that would cause Stratton to owe it a duty. View "New Albany Main Street Properties, LLC v. R. Wayne Stratton, CPA" on Justia Law

Epsilon, an Ohio corporation with a principal place of business in Texas, entered into Joint Operating Agreements (JOAs) with companies, including Chesapeake, an LLC whose sole member is an Oklahoma citizen, to develop natural gas in Pennsylvania. The JOAs require Chesapeake to “have full control of all operations on the Contract Area.” Chesapeake can be removed as Operator for good cause by a vote of the other JOA parties. The JOAs allow the “Non-Operator parties” to propose new well sites. The others have 30 days to decide whether to participate. The work is then ordinarily performed by Chesapeake. If Chesapeake does not approve the project, the Consenting Parties designate a Consenting Party as Operator. Chesapeake opposed wells proposed by Epsilon, then blocked Epsilon from operating the proposed project unilaterally.Epsilon sought a declaration to drill without Chesapeake’s participation. Chesapeake moved to dismiss the suit for failure to join the other JOA co-signatories. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Third Circuit remanded. The other contracting parties are required (Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)). A declaratory judgment interpreting the JOAs to authorize a single Consenting Party to propose the drilling of a new well would affect all their interests. However, other Absent JOA Parties are citizens of Texas who cannot be feasibly joined without defeating diversity and destroying subject matter jurisdiction. Deciding whether to proceed without them requires findings by the trial judge. View "Epsilon Energy USA Inc. v. Chesapeake Appalachia LLC" on Justia Law

The Appellants, investors in the securities of AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., appealed from a district court judgment dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against AmTrust, various AmTrust corporate officers and board members, AmTrust’s outside auditor, and multiple underwriters of AmTrust’s sale of securities. The district court determined that certain public misstatements relating to AmTrust’s recognition of revenue generated by its extended warranty contracts and the expenses associated with its payment of discretionary employee bonuses were non-actionable statements of opinion.The Second Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court vacated the dismissal of the Appellants’ Section 11 claims against the AmTrust Defendants and the Director Defendants, the Section 12(a)(2) claims against AmTrust, and the Section 15 claims against the Officer Defendants and Director Defendants relating to AmTrust’s accounting for certain warranty contracts and bonuses. The court vacated the dismissal of the Appellants’ claims under Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) against the Underwriter Defendants relating to AmTrust’s accounting for certain warranty contracts and bonuses. The court concluded that Appellants have adequately established standing under Section 12(a)(2) by alleging that they purchased securities pursuant to the “pertinent offering documents” or in the relevant offerings underwritten by the defendants. View "New England Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity and Pension Funds v. AmTrust" on Justia Law