SRM Arms, Inc. (“SRM”) filed suit against GSA Direct, LLC, (“GSA”) and FFL Design, LLC, (“FFL”) (collectively, the “Entity Defendants”), and Anthony Turlington, David Lehman, and Ryan Fitzgerald (collectively the “Individual Defendants”), alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, aiding and abetting in the commission of fraud, and unjust enrichment. After the jury awarded verdicts for SRM, all Defendants asked the court to modify the judgments or grant a new trial. The district court entered a remittitur for the claims against the Entity Defendants because it found the amount the jury awarded was excessive and not supported by sufficient evidence at trial. On appeal, SRM argued the district court erred in reducing the awarded damages. In their cross-appeal, the Entity Defendants argued the jury improperly found fraud and improperly found FFL liable for GSA’s debts. The Entity Defendants also argued the damages should have been reduced further. Additionally, the district court granted the Individual Defendants’ motion for a new trial on liability and damages because it found the jury instructions were inadequate to distinguish between direct liability and alter-ego liability. On appeal, SRM argues the jury correctly determined direct liability and associated damages. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded in part. Regarding the Entity Defendants, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the remittitur, or in the alternative, a new trial, in light of the Supreme Court's conclusion that a possible alternate basis for the jury’s verdict could exist. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision upholding the verdict of fraud against GSA and FFL. The district court’s decision to uphold the verdict that FFL is liable to SRM was also affirmed; the Court found the statute of frauds was satisfied and not, as the jury decided, because an exception to the statute of frauds applied. The Court reversed the district court’s decision to uphold the finding of unjust enrichment and remanded for further consideration of whether there was substantial and competent evidence in the record supporting the jury’s award of damages against FFL for both breach of an implied-in-fact contract and unjust enrichment. Regarding the Individual Defendants, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s granting of a new trial on liability against the Individual Defendants. The district court’s award of a new trial on damages against the Individual Defendants was also affirmed. View "SRM Arms, Inc. v. GSA Direct, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment to the Montana Department of Revenue and dismissing Appellants' claims that the Department tortiously, unconstitutionally, and in breach of contract interfered with B.Y.O.B., Inc.'s (BYOB) attempts to transfer its ownership of an agency franchise agreement (AFA) for liquor sales, holding that the district court did not err.After the Department took action to terminate the AFA at issue for alleged violations of the Montana liquor laws, BYOB attempted to sell its interest and transfer ownership of the AFA it held with the Department. When the effort was unsuccessful, Appellants brought this suit. The district court granted summary judgment to the Department, finding that Appellants' AFA transfer-related claims were barred by quasi-judicial immunity or, alternatively, by the parties' settlement agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its rulings related to BYOB's attempts to assign the AFA to third parties. View "B.Y.O.B., Inc. v. Montana Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

Hom rented a San Francisco building to Entertainment for a restaurant. The lease allowed Entertainment to encumber its leasehold in favor of its lenders. A lender with an encumbrance could do anything required of Entertainment under the lease, foreclose on the leasehold, receive copies of notices, cure any breach by Entertainment, and enter into a new lease following any default by Entertainment; the parties were not allowed to modify or cancel the lease without the lender's consent. The lease stated that the prevailing party in any dispute is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. Entertainment later signed promissory notes with Lenders and pledged all of its assets as security. A dispute arose between Entertainment and Hom that resulted in litigation. Entertainment sued for breach of contract. Hom’s cross-complaint alleged that Lenders interfered with Hom’s ability to collect rent and evict Entertainment, that the loans were a sham.The court enforced a settlement between Hom and Entertainment, dismissing the cross-complaint with prejudice. Lenders sought attorney’s fees based on the lease. The court of appeal affirmed the award of approximately $150,000 in fees. Because the lease goes into such detail regarding lenders’ rights, it was reasonably foreseeable that disputes involving lenders would arise over those rights. It is natural to conclude that the landlord and tenant intended to give lenders the same rights to attorney’s fees as the direct parties. View "Hom v. Petrou" on Justia Law

The Union and AT&T entered into a contract governing certification of the Union to represent non-management employees and the relationship between the parties, requiring the parties to arbitrate disputes over “the description of an appropriate unit for bargaining” and the definition of “nonmanagement” employees. All other disputes arising under the contract “shall not be subject to arbitration.” Disputes that are subject to arbitration must “be submitted to arbitration administered by, and in accordance with, the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA).” The AAA’s Labor Arbitration Rules provide that the arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his own jurisdiction, “including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement.” After AT&T acquired Time Warner, the Union initiated discussions about “appropriate potential bargaining units in the newly acquired company.” The parties could not reach an agreement. The Union sought to compel arbitration. The district court dismissed, finding the dispute did not lie within the categories of arbitrable disputes, and that it (as opposed to the arbitrator) could make that threshold determination.The D.C. Circuit vacated. The agreement delegates threshold questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. The question of whether the parties’ dispute falls within the contract’s arbitration clause, then, is for an arbitrator, not a court, to decide. The district court lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the dispute must be submitted to arbitration. View "Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. AT&T Inc." on Justia Law

These appeals stemmed from an Independent Contractor Agreement (the Agreement) entered into by the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (the Tribe) and a non-Indian, Lynn Becker. Becker alleged the Tribe breached the Agreement and owed him a substantial amount of money under the terms of the Agreement. The Tribe disputed Becker’s allegations and asserted a host of defenses, including, in part, that the Agreement was void both because it was never approved by the Department of the Interior and because it purported to afford Becker an interest in Tribal trust property. The dispute between Becker and the Tribe over the Agreement spawned five separate lawsuits in three separate court systems. Before the Tenth Circuit were two appeals filed by the Tribe challenging interlocutory decisions issued by the district court in Becker’s most recent federal action, including a decision by the district court to preliminarily enjoin the Tribal Court proceedings and to preclude the Tribal Court’s orders from having preclusive effect in other proceedings. The Tenth Circuit concluded the tribal exhaustion rule required Becker’s federal lawsuit to be dismissed without prejudice. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision preliminarily enjoining the parties from proceeding in the Tribal Court action and enjoining the Tribal Court’s orders having preclusive effect in other proceedings. The case was remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss Becker’s federal lawsuit without prejudice. View "Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two couples who entered into multiple timeshare contracts with Wyndham, filed suit against Wyndham, alleging various improper trade practices under Missouri law. Wyndham counterclaimed for breach of contract. Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wyndham on its counterclaim.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the notice of appeal confers appellate jurisdiction over the district court's grant of summary judgment. On the merits, the court concluded that plaintiffs ratified their contracts with Wyndham and thus cannot assert duress as a defense. Furthermore, even assuming that the couples did not ratify their contracts and waive the duress defense, the facts show that neither couple was prevented from exercising their free will. Finally, the court concluded that none of Wyndham's alleged misrepresentations rise to the level of fraudulent misrepresentation. View "Kohlbeck v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the economic loss doctrine applies when a fraud claim seeks recovery of only economic losses and is premised solely on nondisclosures or misrepresentations about the quality of goods that are the subject of a contract between sophisticated commercial parties.Plaintiff sued Defendants alleging breach of express and implied warranties, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and a Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claim. The trial court granted Defendants summary judgment on the breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligent misrepresentation claims. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff on the fraud and TCPA claims and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdicts and awarded Plaintiff attorney's fees. On appeal, the court of appeals ruled in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, concluding that the economic loss doctrine barred the fraud claim and that the claim under the TCPA was barred as a matter of law. The Supreme Court set aside Plaintiff's award of attorney's fees and costs based on the TCPA and otherwise affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff's TCPA claim failed as a matter of law, the award of attorney's fees and costs under the TCPA could not stand. View "Milan Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc." on Justia Law

Meinders offers chiropractic services. United provides or administers insurance plans nationwide. In 2006, Meinders became a “participating provider” with United to expand his customer base; he signed a provider agreement with ACN. which provided administrative and network management services for chiropractors, and had a preexisting master services agreement with United. The agreement allowed ACN, “in its sole discretion,” to “assign its rights, duties or obligations” under the agreement.“ The agreement stated that if a dispute arose, either party “may” submit the issue “to arbitration” and any arbitration decision would be “final and binding.”Meinders submitted claims for United-insured patients directly to United; United paid those claims. Those claims were submitted on United forms and if an explanation of benefits was requested, United provided it. Meinders confirmed a patient’s eligibility either through United’s website or through a United phone number. ACN became a wholly-owned subsidiary of United.In 2013, United sent a fax to Meinders, who believed that United had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and filed suit. After remands, the district court held that “United … assumed the material obligations of ACN …, a wholly-owned subsidiary of United, under the Provider Agreement, which authorizes United to enforce the arbitration clause.” The Third Circuit affirmed. View "Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C., Ltd. v. United HealthCare Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants GDB, Stavis, and Kartagener, remanding for further proceedings. This appeal arose from breach of contract and quasi-contract claims brought by plaintiff stemming from defendants' legal representation of plaintiff.The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim because, under New York law, plaintiff can maintain a breach-of-contract claim without any showing that the $100,000 belonged to him. Although plaintiff's quasi-contract claims against Defendant Stavis and GDB do require a showing that he owned the money, the court further concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to those defendants on those claims because there is sufficient evidence in the record from which a jury could conclude that the money indeed belonged to defendant. Finally, the court held that summary judgment for Stavis in his individual capacity was also inappropriate. View "Moreno-Godoy v. Kartagener" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing this action brought by Somersett Owners Association (SOA) seeking to recover damages against those involved in the design and construction of stacked retaining walls supporting the Somersett residential development in northern Nevada, holding that the statute of repose barred this lawsuit.After the rockery walls began failing, SOA brought suit against Defendants alleging negligence and negligence per se, breach of express and implied warranties and other claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the six-year period of repose set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.202 applied. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. At issue was when the rockery walls achieved "substantial completion" for purposes of section 11.202. The Supreme Court held (1) the six-year period in section 11.202 begins when the improvement to the real property is "substantially complete," which means sufficiently complete so that the owner can occupy or utilize the improvement; and (2) SOA failed to set forth specific facts demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual issue as to whether it brought the underlying suit within the six-year period set by section 11.202. View "Somersett Owners Ass'n v. Somersett Development Co." on Justia Law