In 2017, Riverside Mining Limited (Riverside Mining) leased 73 acres of its property to Quality Aggregates (Quality) for mining. By 2020, disputes arose, leading Quality to sue Riverside Mining in 2021 for breach of contract, trespass, and quiet title. In 2022, Riverside Mining filed an unlawful detainer action to evict Quality for alleged lease breaches. The parties agreed that Quality would deposit monthly rent payments with the court during the litigation. Quality later made a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, which Riverside Mining did not accept. Riverside Mining then dismissed the unlawful detainer action without prejudice.The Superior Court of Riverside County dismissed the unlawful detainer action and later addressed two motions: Quality's motion for attorney fees under section 998 and Riverside Mining's motion to disburse the deposited rent payments. The court denied Quality's motion for attorney fees and granted Riverside Mining's motion for disbursement.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decisions. It held that Quality was not entitled to attorney fees under section 998 because Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(2), precludes awarding attorney fees when an action is voluntarily dismissed. The court also affirmed the disbursement of the deposited funds to Riverside Mining, as Quality had no right to a setoff for attorney fees. The court's main holding was that section 998 does not independently authorize attorney fees without an underlying statutory or contractual right, and Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(2), prevents such an award in cases of voluntary dismissal. View "Riverside Mining Limited v. Quality Aggregates" on Justia Law

The case involves property owners Brenda and Ray von Wandruszka and Robert R. Davis, who sued the City of Moscow after the city adopted a resolution in 2021 revising its utility billing process. The new policy required property owners to sign contracts making them responsible for tenants' unpaid water bills, under threat of water service termination. The plaintiffs signed the contracts under protest and claimed they were unenforceable adhesion contracts signed under duress.The District Court of the Second Judicial District of Idaho reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court ruled that the city was not authorized to recover tenants' unpaid utility charges from property owners, citing City of Grangeville v. Haskin. However, it also ruled that the city could require owner-occupied properties to enter agreements to pay for water consumed. Both parties appealed the split decision.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and clarified that City of Grangeville does not prohibit municipalities from collecting tenants' unpaid utilities from property owners if there is a contractual basis. The court found that the utility billing agreements were not secured under duress, as the city's actions were not coercive. However, the court determined that the lien provisions in the agreements were too vague and indefinite to be enforceable, rendering the contracts invalid.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs regarding tenant-occupied properties but reversed the summary judgment in favor of the city concerning owner-occupied properties. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The plaintiffs were awarded costs as the prevailing party, but no attorney fees were granted to either side. View "Von Wandruszka v. City of Moscow" on Justia Law

Taxinet Corporation sued Santiago Leon, alleging various claims stemming from a joint effort to secure a government concession for a taxi-hailing app in Mexico City. The district court granted summary judgment for Leon on all claims except for a Florida-law unjust enrichment claim, which went to trial along with Leon’s counterclaims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. The jury awarded Taxinet $300 million for unjust enrichment and Leon $15,000 for negligent misrepresentation. However, the district court granted Leon’s Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, ruling that the damages award was based on inadmissible hearsay and was speculative.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially allowed testimony regarding a $2.4 billion valuation by Goldman Sachs, which was later deemed inadmissible hearsay. The court concluded that without this evidence, there was insufficient support for the jury’s $300 million award. The court also noted that the valuation was speculative and not directly tied to the benefit conferred by Taxinet in 2015.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s Rule 50(b) order, agreeing that the valuation evidence was inadmissible hearsay and that the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the $300 million award. However, the appellate court exercised its discretion to remand for a new trial on the unjust enrichment claim. The court found that Taxinet had presented enough evidence to show that it conferred a benefit on Leon, which he accepted, and that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment. The court also noted that Taxinet could potentially present other evidence of damages in a new trial.The appellate court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on Taxinet’s other claims, ruling that the alleged joint venture agreement was subject to Florida’s statute of frauds, as it could not be completed within a year. Thus, any claims based on the existence of the joint venture agreement were barred. View "Taxinet Corp. v. Leon" on Justia Law

A sub-subcontractor, Diamond Services Corporation, entered into a contract with Harbor Dredging, a subcontractor, to perform dredging work in the Houston Ship Channel. The prime contract for the project was awarded to RLB Contracting by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and RLB obtained a surety bond from Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. During the project, unexpected site conditions, including the presence of tires, caused delays and increased costs. Diamond continued working based on an alleged agreement that it would be compensated through a measured-mile calculation in a request for equitable adjustment (REA) submitted by RLB to the Corps. However, RLB later settled the REA for $6,000,000 without directly involving Diamond in the negotiations and issued a joint check to Harbor and Diamond for $950,000.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed some of Diamond's claims, including those for unjust enrichment and express contractual claims against RLB, but allowed Diamond's quantum meruit claim to proceed. The court also denied Travelers' motion to dismiss Diamond's Miller Act claims but required Diamond to amend its complaint to include proper Miller Act notice, which Diamond failed to do timely. Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of RLB and Harbor, dismissing Diamond's remaining claims and striking Diamond's untimely second amended complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment against Diamond's quantum meruit claims, holding that the express sub-subcontract covered the damages Diamond sought and that Diamond failed to provide evidence of the reasonable value of the work performed. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Diamond's Miller Act claim, as the damages sought were not recoverable under the Act. The court dismissed Diamond's appeal regarding the tug-expenses claim due to untimeliness. View "Diamond Services v. RLB Contracting" on Justia Law

Rose McAvoy, an undergraduate student at Dickinson College, alleged that the college violated Title IX and breached its contract by failing to respond adequately to her sexual assault claim. McAvoy reported that she was sexually assaulted by a fellow student, TS, in October 2017. She initially did not disclose TS's name but later requested a formal Title IX investigation in December 2017. Dickinson initiated an investigation, issued a no-contact directive, and provided McAvoy with various accommodations and support services.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of Dickinson College. The court found that McAvoy failed to produce sufficient evidence that Dickinson acted with deliberate indifference under Title IX and did not show sufficient evidence of breach of contract damages. The court noted that Dickinson's response, including the investigation and accommodations provided, was not clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that Dickinson's actions, including the thorough investigation and the support provided to McAvoy, did not constitute deliberate indifference. The court emphasized that the investigation's length, while longer than the college's sixty-day objective, was justified by the need for thoroughness and fairness. Additionally, the court found no evidence that the lack of written notice about the investigation's delay caused McAvoy's claimed injuries, such as encountering TS on campus or delaying her graduation.The Third Circuit concluded that Dickinson's response to McAvoy's assault claim was not clearly unreasonable and that McAvoy did not establish a causal connection between the alleged breach of contract and her damages. Therefore, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Dickinson College. View "McAvoy v. Dickinson College" on Justia Law

Molecular Biologicals, a pharmaceutical start-up, entered into a Master Service Agreement with Mission Pharmacal, a third-party logistics provider, in September 2017. Under this agreement, Mission provided distribution services for Molecular’s product, Keragel, including order processing and return processing. In 2018, Mission sold $2,387,704 worth of Molecular’s products to major pharmaceutical wholesalers, but due to lack of sales, $1,780,027 worth of products were returned in 2019. Mission issued credits to the wholesalers for these returns, a process referred to as "chargeback." Initially, Molecular agreed to reimburse Mission for these chargebacks but later refused, leading Mission to file a lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held a bench trial and determined that the contract did not explicitly require Molecular to reimburse Mission for the chargebacks. The court found that the contract was unambiguous in its silence on this issue and ruled that Mission could not recover the costs of the returns under either a breach of contract or quantum meruit theory. The district court awarded Mission recovery for unpaid service fees but not for the chargebacks.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the contract, when interpreted in its entirety, clearly required Molecular to reimburse Mission for the chargebacks. The term "chargeback" in the contract implied that Mission would handle the logistics and bookkeeping of returns, while Molecular would bear the financial responsibility. The court found that the district court erred in its interpretation by not considering the harmonious reading of the contract provisions. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Molecular breached the contract by failing to reimburse Mission and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Mission Pharmacal v. Molecular Biologicals" on Justia Law

Krishna P. Sharma Poudel and Binod Dhakal worked as Nepalese-English interpreters for Mid Atlantic Professionals, Inc. (MAPI), serving the U.S. Department of State in Kabul, Afghanistan. They alleged that MAPI failed to pay them all contracted-for and promised wages, including overtime, per diem allowances, and reimbursement for annual trips home. Their employment agreements, executed in Maryland, included a choice-of-law provision specifying Maryland law.The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, asserting violations of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL) and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL). MAPI moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Maryland’s Wage Laws do not apply extraterritorially, and since the plaintiffs performed no work in Maryland, their claims were barred. The district court granted MAPI’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Wage Laws lacked an express extraterritorial provision and that the plaintiffs did not perform any work in Maryland.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, agreeing that Maryland’s Wage Laws do not apply extraterritorially without some work being performed in Maryland. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the choice-of-law provision in their employment agreements allowed them to bring claims under Maryland’s Wage Laws, noting that Maryland precedent does not support such an extension. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could not maintain their claims under the Wage Laws because they did not perform any work in Maryland. View "Poudel v. Mid Atlantic Professionals, Inc." on Justia Law

Jose Pedro Garcia was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture containing fentanyl. He pled guilty to the charge. While awaiting sentencing, Garcia assaulted another detainee. This incident led the probation officer to determine that Garcia was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, a determination the Government adopted. The district court agreed and denied any reduction for acceptance of responsibility.Garcia appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the Government breached the plea agreement by not recommending a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Garcia did not raise this issue in the district court, so the appellate court reviewed for plain error. Garcia contended that the plea agreement required the Government to move for a three-level reduction under § 3E1.1. However, the plea agreement only obligated the Government to move for the third point of reduction under § 3E1.1(b) if the district court awarded the initial two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a). The agreement did not restrict the Government's arguments regarding the initial two-level reduction.The Fifth Circuit found that the Government's argument against the reduction was consistent with a reasonable understanding of the plea agreement and did not constitute a breach. Since Garcia did not demonstrate that the Government breached the plea agreement and did not argue that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement was invalid, the court dismissed the appeal. The court did not consider Garcia’s remaining arguments challenging the denial of the reduction under § 3E1.1. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Jason Ziemann, the plaintiff, became involved in the operation of Grosz Wrecking, a business owned by his grandmother, Juanita Grosz, after her husband passed away. Ziemann moved into a home on the business property in 2014. In 2022, Grosz sought to evict Ziemann after he refused to purchase the home. Ziemann then sued Grosz, alleging they had an oral partnership agreement and sought a declaration of partnership, accounting, and dissolution, along with claims for breach of fiduciary duties and tortious interference with a business relationship. Grosz denied the partnership and counterclaimed for trespass.The District Court of McLean County denied Ziemann’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling factual issues existed regarding the partnership. The court granted Grosz’s motion, dismissing Ziemann’s claims for tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty, citing inadmissible hearsay and lack of evidence for damages. After a bench trial, the court found the parties had formed a partnership with specific profit-sharing terms and dismissed Grosz’s trespass claim, allowing Ziemann to remain on the property until the business was dissolved. The court ordered the liquidation of partnership assets and awarded Ziemann costs.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It affirmed the lower court’s findings that a partnership existed and that Grosz contributed property to it. The court also upheld the dismissal of Grosz’s trespass claim and Ziemann’s claims for tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty. However, it reversed the lower court’s decision not to apply the default partnership winding up provisions under N.D.C.C. § 45-20-07. The case was remanded for the district court to enter judgment consistent with this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of costs and disbursements to Ziemann as the prevailing party. View "Ziemann v. Grosz" on Justia Law

Bijan Boutiques, LLC (Bijan) appealed a summary judgment in favor of Rosamari Isong. Bijan sought to void the property distribution in the marital dissolution judgment between Isong and her former husband, Richard Milam Akubiro, under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA). Bijan argued that the judgment was fraudulent as it awarded Isong the couple’s only U.S. property, making it difficult to enforce a judgment Bijan had against Akubiro without incurring significant expenses to pursue foreign assets.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County ruled that Bijan’s complaint was barred by Family Code section 916, subdivision (a)(2), which protects property received in a marital dissolution from being liable for a spouse’s debt unless the debt was assigned to the receiving spouse. The court found that the marital dissolution judgment was not a product of a negotiated settlement but was adjudicated by the court, thus not subject to the UVTA.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that Family Code section 916 precludes Bijan from enforcing its judgment against the property awarded to Isong. The court distinguished this case from Mejia v. Reed, which allowed UVTA claims against marital settlement agreements, noting that the dissolution judgment here was court-adjudicated, not a private agreement. The court also rejected Bijan’s arguments that the judgment was obtained by fraud and that the Chino property should not have been subject to division, affirming that the property was presumed to be community property under Family Code section 2581.The appellate court concluded that Bijan could not satisfy its judgment against Akubiro by executing on the property awarded to Isong and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Isong. View "Bijan Boutiques v. Isong" on Justia Law