In this venue dispute, the Supreme Court denied a petition for mandamus relief, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case to the parties' agreed venue.This case stemmed from a lawsuit alleging wrongful disposition of a limited partnership's assets. A group of the limited partners (collectively, Fox River) sued William Carlson, who owned and controlled the partnership's general partner, claiming that Carlson fraudulently misappropriated groundwater leases, breached the limited partnership agreement, and violated fiduciary duties. Fox River filed the lawsuit in Washington County where Carlson was domiciled. Carlson moved to transfer venue to Harris County, citing a venue-selection clause in the limited partnership agreement. The trial court granted the motion, enforcing the parties' venue agreement in accordance with Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 15.020. Fox River sought mandamus relief, arguing that Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 65.023(a) mandates venue in a defendant's county of domicile for cases primarily seeking injunctive relief. The Supreme Court denied mandamus relief, holding that section 15.020 requires enforcement of the parties' venue-selection agreement not because it is a "super mandatory" venue provision that supersedes section 65.023(a) but because section 65.023(a) does not apply in suits like this where injunctive relief is not the primary and principal relief requested. View "In re Fox River Real Estate Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

In this contract dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Defendants, holding that, under the statute of frauds, the proffered contract was not enforceable and Defendants could not be liable for breach of it.The parties to this dispute sent several e-mails prior to the anticipating signing of a formal written agreement, which was never executed. Plaintiffs, however, claimed that the e-mails, taken together, amounted to an enforceable written contract that satisfied the statute of frauds. Plaintiffs sued for breach of the alleged contract and for tortious interference. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims. The court of appeals reversed as to the breach of contract claim, concluding that the e-mails satisfied the statute of frauds and amounted to a contract enforceable against Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment on the contract claims, holding that there was no written memorandum which was complete within itself in every material detail, as required by the statute of frauds. View "Copano Energy, LLC v. Bujnoch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court concluding that Petitioners (together, ETP) and Respondents (together, Enterprise) had created a partnership to market and pursue a pipeline project to transport crude oil from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast, holding that Texas law permits parties to conclusively agree that, as between themselves, no partnership will exist unless certain conditions are satisfied.In three written agreements, the parties set forth their intent that neither party be bound to proceed with the project at issue until each company's board of directors had approved the execution of a formal contract and definitive agreements memorializing the terms and conditions of the transactions were executed and delivered. ETP later sued arguing the parties had formed a partnership to market and pursue a pipeline and that Enterprise breached its statutory duty of loyalty. The trial court entered judgment for ETP. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) parties can conclusively negate the formation of a partnership through contractual conditions precedent; and (2) the parties did so as a matter of law in this case, and there was no evidence that Enterprise waived the conditions. View "Energy Transfer Partners, LP v. Enterprise Products Partners, LP" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review centered on whether a binding arbitration clause in an insurance policy issued by plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., applied to a third party, defendant SMG Holdings, Inc. The policy had been issued to Future Farmers of America, which was holding an event inside the Fresno Convention Center. Future Farmers had licensed the use of the convention center from its property manager, SMG. As part of the license, Future Farmers agreed to obtain coverage for itself and to name SMG as an additional insured. Thereafter, Future Farmers obtained a policy from Philadelphia Indemnity, which provided coverage for “managers, landlords, or lessors of premises” as well as for any organization “as required by contract.” The policy also contained an arbitration clause for coverage disputes. During the Future Farmers event, an attendee was injured in the convention center parking lot. When the injured man sued SMG, which also managed the parking lot, SMG tendered its defense to Philadelphia under the policy. Philadelphia refused, believing SMG was not covered under the policy for an injury occurring in the parking lot. After two years, Philadelphia petitioned the trial court to compel arbitration against SMG. The trial court denied the petition, concluding no evidence was presented that the parties to the policy intended to benefit SMG, and Philadelphia was equitably estopped from claiming SMG was required to arbitrate the dispute. Philadelphia contended: (1) the trial court erred in determining SMG was neither a third party beneficiary of the policy, nor equitably estopped from avoiding the policy’s arbitration clause; (2) alternatively, the court erred in finding Philadelphia estopped from compelling SMG to arbitrate; and (3) the coverage dispute was encompassed by the arbitration clause and arbitration should be ordered. The Court of Appeal agreed SMG could be compelled to arbitrate. Judgment was reversed, the trial court's order vacated, and the trial court directed to order arbitration of the coverage dispute. View "Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

In this compensation dispute based on an oral agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants the Supreme Court affirmed the intermediate court of appeals' (ICA) judgment on appeal affirming the circuit court's final judgment, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants' Haw. R. Civ. P. 55(c) motion to set aside entry of default and did not err in its other rulings.The circuit court entered default and subsequent default judgment as to certain claims against defendants. After a bench trial regarding damages on the remaining claims the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants' motion to set aside entry of default; and (2) prospectively, a Rule 55(c) motion to set aside entry of default is to be evaluated based only on whether there has been a showing of "good cause." View "Chen v. Mah" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from plaintiff Rich Jones’ civil action to recover unpaid wages that defendant Four Corners Rod & Gun Club unlawfully withheld after the parties agreed to trade a lodging benefit for labor. Although Oregon’s wage laws authorized employers to deduct from an employee’s wages “the fair market value of lodging, meals or other facilities or services furnished by the employer for the private benefit of the employee,” those laws also prohibited employers from taking any deduction from wages unless the employer obtains the employee’s advance written authorization and keeps a record of the deductions. Defendant admittedly failed to comply with the requirements for deducting the lodging benefit from plaintiff’s wages. The issue this case presented for the Oregon Supreme Court’s review was whether defendant’s violation of ORS 652.610(3) prevented defendant from asserting an equitable claim for the value of the lodging benefit, either as an affirmative defense to plaintiff’s wage claim or as a lawful counterclaim. The Supreme Court concluded that defendant’s unlawful withholding of wages prevented it from asserting the value of the lodging benefit as an affirmative defense to defeat plaintiff’s wage claim, but did not prevent defendant from asserting an equitable counterclaim for the value of the lodging benefit. View "Jones v. Four Corners Rod & Gun Club" on Justia Law

Luv N’ Care, Ltd. (“LNC”), a Louisiana corporation, filed suit against Jackel International Limited (a corporation established under the laws of England and Wales, having its principal place of business in England) and others, relating to a distribution agreement for child and baby care items. Jackel would be the exclusive distributor of certain LNC products. LNC contended Jackel agreed bot to copy any of LNC's products, their design, prototypes, packaging, methods, or any other proprietary information without LNC's written permission. However, LNC alleged that, on or about October 2009, it learned that Jackel had been selling child and baby products not covered under the terms of the distribution agreement with LNC, but which closely resembled LNC products. Furthermore, in April of 2010, LNC learned that Jackel began to commercialize additional child and baby products, which allegedly incorporated LNC’s products, design, and/or packaging in violation of the contract between the parties. This case presented an issue of first impression for the Louisiana Supreme Court regarding whether La. R.S. 13:4611(1)(g) authorized an award of attorney fees to a party in a contempt proceeding, who had been found not guilty of contempt of court, or whether an award of attorney fees was only authorized in favor of a party who successfully prosecuted a contempt action. The district court awarded, and the appellate court affirmed, attorney fees to Jackel, who was found not to be in contempt, as the “prevailing party.” Having determined that La. R.S. 13:4611(1)(g) only authorized courts to award attorney fees to a party who successfully prosecuted a rule for contempt of court, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in awarding attorney fees in favor of Jackel, and reversed the appellate and district courts holding otherwise. Insofar as the judgment awarded attorney fees, that portion was vacated. View "Luv N' Care, Ltd. v. Jackel International Limited" on Justia Law

USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA”) sought a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to defend, indemnify, or provide insurance coverage for claims made in two lawsuits against Trinity Carr, the daughter of a USAA homeowner’s-insurance policyholder. The plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuits sought money damages from Carr and others for personal injuries and wrongful death suffered by Amy Joyner-Francis in a physical altercation - described in both complaints as a “brutal, senseless, forseeable [sic] and preventable attack” - between Joyner-Francis and Carr and her friends. USAA argued at trial, as it did before the Delaware Supreme Court, that the incident - whether it be labeled an altercation, an attack, or otherwise - was not an “accident” and therefore not a covered occurrence under the policy and that, even if it were, the purported liability was excluded from coverage. The Superior Court disagreed and entered summary judgment in favor of Carr. The Delaware Supreme Court agreed with USAA’s interpretation of the relevant policy provisions and therefore reversed the Superior Court’s judgment. "To label an intentional assault, as the parties agree occurred here, an accident is to disregard the ordinary, everyday meaning of 'accident.' We thus hold that whether an assault is an 'accident' is determined by the intent of the insured, and not by the viewpoint of the victim. ... even though Carr may not have intended to cause [the victim's] death, she certainly intended to cause injury to her." View "USAA Casualty Ins. Co. v. Carr" on Justia Law

Prime, a trucking company, covered its own liability without insurance for the first $3 million per occurrence and bought excess liability insurance from multiple insurers, following a common industry practice of stacking policies into sequential “layers” of excess insurance coverage. Two accidents occurred in 2015 when Prime was covered by RLI and AIG policies. The two cases settled for $36 million. Prime was covered $3 million for each occurrence. The RLI Policy provided the next layer of coverage with an “Aggregate Corridor Deductible” (ACD) that obligated Prime to pay out an additional $2.5 million annually before RLI began to pay. RLI argued that the ACD sat within RLI’s $2 million layer, leaving RLI with no responsibility for any payment until Prime had both paid $3 million per occurrence and the year’s ACD. AIG argued that the ACD sat below RLI’s $2 million layer, so AIG’s duty to pay would not be triggered until Prime and RLI had together paid $7.5 million for the first occurrence.The district court found that payments toward the ACD erode RLI’s policy layer. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The custom-tailored ACD feature of the RLI Policy was ambiguous but undisputed extrinsic evidence shows that RLI is correct. RLI has consistently expressed that Prime’s ACD payments reduce its responsibility for losses; Prime did not disagree before this dispute. The only reasonable inference from the parties’ negotiations is that AIG did not believe the ACD affected the threshold at which its layer began—$5 million per occurrence. View "Lexington Insurance Co. v. RLI Insurance Co." on Justia Law

When Erik Knight sold KnighTek, LLC to Jive Communications, Inc., Jive allegedly agreed to pay Knight $100,000 upfront and a revenue-based payment stream capped at $4.6 million. The continuing payments would convert to a lump sum payment if Jive’s ownership changed. Years later, Jive offered to cash out KnighTek for $1.75 million, a substantial discount from the remaining cap amount. According to Knight, Jive’s representatives told him the buy-out money depended on KnighTek accepting the proposal right away. If it did not, Jive would use the funds for other buyouts. Jive’s representatives also told Knight if he turned down the offer, it would take five years for Jive to make the remaining payments. Two days after KnighTek agreed to accept $1.75 million, Jive announced publicly it was being acquired by LogMeIn for $342 million - a change of control that according to KnighTek would have netted it a $2.7 million immediate payment under their earlier agreement. Believing it had been misled and shorted about $1 million, KnighTek filed suit against Jive, alleging that Jive fraudulently induced KnighTek to take the discounted payout. According to KnighTek, Jive and its representatives knew about the imminent change of control, misrepresented the availability of buyout funds, and duped KnighTek into accepting a discount when KnighTek could have received almost $1 million more and an immediate payment after the LogMeIn transaction. A Delaware superior court dismissed the complaint, finding some of Jive’s alleged misrepresentations lacked particularity and others failed to state a claim under Utah law, the law governing their agreements. The Delaware Supreme Court disagreed, finding that, viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to KnighTek, accepting as true its well-pleaded allegations, and drawing all reasonable inferences that logically flow from those allegations, KnighTek alleged fraud with sufficient particularity and stated a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation under Utah law. Thus the Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Knightek, LLC v. Jive Communications, Inc." on Justia Law