The case revolves around a dispute over attorney's fees in a Social Security disability benefits case. The plaintiff, Christian Arnold, was represented by the law firm Binder & Binder. After Arnold was determined to be disabled and entitled to past-due benefits, the law firm requested attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), based on a contingency fee agreement Arnold had signed. However, the district court reduced the requested fees by nearly sixty percent, arguing that the full request would result in a "windfall" for the law firm, which was prohibited by statute. Binder & Binder appealed this decision.The case was initially heard by an administrative law judge (ALJ) who concluded that Arnold was not disabled. Arnold appealed this decision to the district court, which remanded the case back to the ALJ. On remand, the ALJ ruled in Arnold's favor, and the Social Security Administration issued a Notice of Award to Arnold for past-due benefits. Binder & Binder then moved for attorney's fees in the district court under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), based on their contingency fee agreement with Arnold. The district court, however, reduced the requested fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court had abused its discretion by not basing its analysis primarily on the contingency agreement before considering the reasonableness of the request. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized that the contingency fee agreement should be the starting point for determining reasonableness under § 406(b), and any reduction should be justified based on relevant factors such as the claimant's satisfaction with their attorney's representation, the attorney's expertise and efforts expended, and the uncertainty of recovery and risks of an adverse outcome. View "Arnold v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over a family farm in Minnesota. Richard and Paulette Dunn entered into a contract for deed with their son, Rory, for the sale of their family farm. The contract stipulated that Rory could not sell, assign, or otherwise transfer his interest in the farm without the Dunns' written consent. However, Rory died two years later without a will, and his interest in the farm was transferred to his young son by intestate succession. Jeffrey Kuhn, the personal representative of Rory’s estate, intended to divide the property and sell a portion of the farm on the open market. The Dunns responded by cancelling the contract for deed, arguing that the intestate transfer of Rory’s interest to his son without their consent was a breach of the contract.The district court ruled in favor of the Dunns, stating that the intestate transfer of Rory’s interest in the farm violated the consent-to-transfer provision and materially breached the contract for deed. However, the court of appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the intestate transfer of Rory’s estate as a result of Rory’s inaction did not violate the consent-to-transfer provision.The Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to decide whether an intestate transfer of an interest in a family farm breaches a consent-to-transfer provision in a contract for deed. The court held that the intestate transfer of Rory’s interest in the farm violated the consent-to-transfer provision and that this violation was a material breach of the contract for deed. Therefore, the court reversed the decision of the court of appeals. View "Kuhn vs. Dunn" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between D&M Roofing and Siding, Inc. (D&M), a roofing company, and Distribution, Inc., the owner of a warehouse. D&M had entered into a contract with Distribution to repair hail damage to the roof of Distribution's warehouse. However, Distribution later decided to use a different contractor for the repairs. D&M sued Distribution for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, claiming damages based on a cancellation fee provision in the contract. The district court found that the contract was enforceable and that Distribution had breached it. However, it also found that D&M was not entitled to any damages because it had not performed any work under the contract.The district court's decision was based on D&M's admission that its breach of contract damages were limited to those under the cancellation fee provision in the contract. The court found that under the clear and unambiguous language of the provision, D&M was only entitled to a cancellation fee of 20 percent of the "work done" by D&M. Since D&M had not performed any work, it was not entitled to the cancellation fee. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Distribution on D&M's unjust enrichment claim, explaining that an enforceable contract displaces such a claim.D&M later filed a second motion for summary judgment, this time alleging lost profits as the measure of damages for the breach of contract claim. The district court construed the motion as a motion to reconsider. The court explained that even though its prior order did not use the word "dismissed," it had disposed of the whole merits of the case and left nothing for the court's further consideration. The court denied D&M's motion and granted a cross-motion by Distribution for summary judgment. D&M appealed, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the court had not yet issued a final order or rendered a judgment. View "D& M Roofing & Siding v. Distribution, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Julie and Gary Liebel, who married in 2010 and divorced in 2022. Prior to their marriage, they had signed a premarital agreement stating that each party's assets would remain separate and under their sole control, even after the marriage. The agreement also stated that neither party would acquire any interest in the other's property due to the marriage. The couple divorced on the grounds of adultery, and the circuit court applied the premarital agreement in dividing their assets. Julie appealed, arguing that the court erred in applying the agreement to the property division in the divorce and abused its discretion in classifying and distributing the parties’ property.The circuit court had found the premarital agreement to be valid and enforceable in the context of divorce. It also found that the agreement unambiguously governed the division of property in the event of divorce. The court treated the marital home, which was held jointly, as marital property, but most of the remaining property was treated as nonmarital. Gary received the bulk of the nonmarital property valued at $713,705. Upon division of the net marital assets, Julie was awarded marital property valued at $35,482, while Gary received marital property valued at $134,535. The court ordered Gary to make a cash equalization payment to Julie in the amount of $49,526, less $2,062.80 in attorney fees awarded to Gary for defending a protection order that the court determined Julie filed maliciously.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. It found that the premarital agreement unambiguously provided that neither spouse may claim an interest in the separate property of the other, whether it was acquired before or during the marriage. This could only be understood to mean that the other spouse would not obtain any interest in separately owned property under any circumstances, including divorce, unless mutually agreed to by creating a joint tenancy in any property. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's division of property. View "Liebel v. Liebel" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a real estate and construction contract. The plaintiffs, Myles Davis and Janelle Dahl, sued their homebuilder, Blast Properties, Inc., and Tyler Bosier, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, but certified a question to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho due to inconsistencies in the interpretation of Idaho Code section 6-1604(2), which prohibits claimants from including a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages in their initial pleading.The U.S. District Court asked the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho to determine the proper means a trial court must apply when considering a motion to amend a pleading to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages pursuant to Idaho Code section 6-1604(2). The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho rephrased the question to clarify the obligations of a trial court under Idaho Code section 6-1604(2) when ruling upon a motion to amend a complaint or counterclaim to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that section 6-1604(2) requires the trial court to conduct a careful examination of the evidence submitted by the moving party in support of its motion to amend and the arguments made to determine whether there is a "reasonable probability" that the evidence submitted is: (1) admissible at trial; and (2) "sufficient" to support an award of punitive damages. The word "sufficient" means that the claim giving rise to the request for punitive damages must be legally cognizable and the evidence presented must be substantial. The court clarified that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is the standard for a jury, not the trial court when it is ruling on a motion to amend a pleading to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. View "Davis v. Blast" on Justia Law

International Development Solutions, LLC (IDS), a security service contractor, entered into a contract with the Department of State for the provision of personal protection services in Afghanistan. IDS was initially a joint venture between ACADEMI Training Center, Inc. (ATCI) and Kaseman, LLC. However, ATCI later purchased all of Kaseman, LLC’s membership interest in IDS, making IDS a sole member LLC with ATCI as the sole member and owner. IDS then sold and transferred all of its interests in all of its contracts, subcontracts, and all property and assets to ATCI. ATCI requested the State to recognize it as the successor-in-interest to IDS’s contract through a formal novation agreement, but the State denied the request.The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals denied IDS’s consolidated appeal seeking cost-reimbursement of tax payments made by related corporate entities. The Board found no entitlement to reimbursement as IDS did not present evidence that tax amounts paid were costs incurred by IDS, the contractor, rather than by entities higher in IDS’s ownership chain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that IDS did not present evidence that tax amounts paid were costs incurred by IDS, the contractor, rather than by entities higher in IDS’s ownership chain. Therefore, IDS was not entitled to reimbursement. View "INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC v. SECRETARY OF STATE " on Justia Law

Ascension Data & Analytics, Rocktop Partners, and Rocktop Holdings II (collectively, "Ascension") entered into a contract with Pairprep, Inc. for data extraction services. The contract was terminated due to an alleged data breach and Pairprep's failure to extract reliable data. Ascension then contracted with another vendor, Altada Technologies Solutions, but that contract was also terminated early due to Altada's financial crisis. Ascension initiated arbitration proceedings against Pairprep to recover remediation costs incurred as a result of the data breach. Pairprep counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and violation of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. The arbitration panel rejected Ascension's defenses and granted Pairprep a monetary award.Ascension filed an application in the Northern District of Texas to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that Pairprep's counterclaims were barred by res judicata due to a previous dismissal of identical claims against Altada. Pairprep filed an application to confirm the arbitral award in a Texas state court, which was granted. The district court dismissed Ascension's application for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied its motion for preliminary injunctive relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in Badgerow v. Walters, which held that a district court must have an independent jurisdictional basis to consider applications to confirm, modify, or vacate arbitral awards under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court found that Ascension had not established an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, as the parties were not diverse and Ascension did not identify any federal law entitling it to relief. Therefore, the court concluded that the dispute over the enforceability of the arbitral award must be litigated in state court. View "Ascension Data v. Pairprep" on Justia Law

A group of medical providers sued a former employee for breach of an employment agreement. The employee counterclaimed, alleging he was owed unpaid wages and bonuses. The providers initially raised "failure to state a claim" as their sole affirmative defense. However, after nearly four years of litigation, they attempted to argue for the first time that the contract was illegal and therefore void. The lower court found that the providers had waived this affirmative defense and issued a judgment in favor of the employee. The providers appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, concluding that the lower court had abused its discretion by refusing to consider the providers' claim of illegality.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma disagreed with the Court of Civil Appeals. It held that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in striking the providers' last-minute effort to raise a new affirmative defense. The court noted that the providers had failed to raise the illegality defense in their initial responsive pleading and did not seek to amend their answer in a timely manner. Furthermore, the providers did not raise the illegality defense until after the trial court had already awarded summary judgment to the employee on the issue of breach of contract, more than ten months after the close of discovery, more than nine months after the lower court's deadline for filing dispositive motions, and almost four years after the original lawsuit was filed. The court concluded that the record was sufficient to support a finding that the providers' delay was unjustified and prejudicial. The court vacated the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, affirmed the trial court's order striking the illegality affirmative defense, and remanded the case to the Court of Civil Appeals to resolve any remaining undecided issues raised in the appeal. View "Tulsa Ambulatory Procedure Center v. Olmstead" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Zimmer Biomet, a medical-device manufacturer, and six of its former sales distributors. The dispute arose from a compensation agreement that guaranteed the distributors a lifetime of long-term commissions on all sales made within their distributorship after retirement. As the company grew and acquired competitors, a disagreement emerged over which product categories fell within the distributorship and were thus subject to the long-term commission agreement.The district court found the agreement ambiguous and sent the case to trial. The jury returned a split verdict, finding that Biomet owed long-term commissions on some products but not others. Biomet appealed the denials of its motions for summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law, and the distributors cross-appealed the dismissal of two counts of their complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court agreed that the distributorship agreement was ambiguous regarding the specific categories of products it covered. It also found that the trial record supported the jury’s verdict in favor of the distributors on their Indiana breach-of-contract claim. The court rejected Biomet's argument that the agreement unambiguously limited long-term commissions to reconstructive products, finding that the agreement did not provide clear guidance on which product categories were covered. The court also upheld the dismissal of two counts in the distributors’ complaint, finding that they either lacked a contractual basis or were duplicative of another count. View "Hess v. Biomet, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Ravi Teja, an Indian citizen, who paid thousands of dollars to enroll at the "University of Farmington," expecting to take classes. Unbeknownst to him, the University was a fictitious entity created by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as part of an undercover operation to target fraud involving student visas. When the operation came to light, the government neither provided the education Ravi had paid for nor refunded his money. Ravi filed a lawsuit against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging a breach of contract and an accompanying breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Ravi's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without addressing other issues. The court reasoned that its jurisdiction under the Tucker Act does not extend to contracts entered into by the government when acting as a sovereign unless those contracts unmistakably subject the government to damages in the event of breach. The court concluded that the government was acting in its sovereign capacity as it entered into the alleged contract in furtherance of an undercover law-enforcement operation, and that the alleged contract did not unmistakably subject the government to damages in the event of breach.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Claims Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Appeals Court concluded that the Claims Court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Tucker Act over the agreement alleged by Ravi. The court disagreed with the Claims Court's interpretation of the Tucker Act, stating that the contract in question did not concern what was promised to happen or not to happen in a different proceeding in another adjudicatory forum, and thus did not fall into the narrow exception carved out by precedent. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that other grounds not reached by the Claims Court but raised by the government as alternative bases to affirm warranted further exploration. View "RAVI v. US " on Justia Law