This case centered on a dispute between SOLIDFX, LLC, a software development company, and Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing that developed aviation terminal charts. SOLIDFX sued Jeppesen, asserting antitrust, breach-of-contract, and tort claims. The district court granted partial summary judgment on the antitrust claims, but the remaining claims proceeded to trial. A jury ultimately found in favor of SOLIDFX and awarded damages in excess of $43 million. Jeppesen appealed, challenging only the district court’s ruling that SOLIDFX could recover lost profits on its contract claims. SOLIDFX cross-appealed the district court’s summary judgment order in favor of Jeppesen on the antitrust claims. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the License Agreement at issue here unambiguously precluded the recovery of lost profits, irrespective of whether they were direct or consequential damages. But the Court also determined that, even if the agreement could be read to allow the recovery of direct lost profits, the lost profits awarded by the jury here were consequential damages and therefore not recoverable. Because the Court held that SOLIDFX was contractually precluded from recovering the amounts awarded for lost profits, it did not reach the question of whether SOLIDFX proved those lost profits with reasonable certainty, nor did it address the admissibility of expert testimony offered by SOLIDFX to establish the amount of its lost profits. Finally, the Court agreed with the district court that Jeppesen was entitled to summary judgment on SOLIDFX’s antitrust claims. View "Solidfx v. Jeppesen Sanderson" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the interpretation a land description in an option contract between Landowners and an oil and gas company (Company). Landowners argued that the description excluded a 400-acre tract. Company argued that the description included the 400-acre tract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Company. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the option contract was ambiguous and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding that Landowners’ interpretation of the contract was the only reasonable interpretation, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in holding that the contract was ambiguous. Remanded. View "North Shore Energy, L.L.C. v. Harkins" on Justia Law

In 2008, the workers’ compensation insurance policy for South Jersey (SJ), a trash-removal business, neared expiration, SJ, through its insurance agent, entered into a three-year Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) with Applied Underwriters. The RPA stated that any disputes would be arbitrated in Tortola or in an agreed location and indicated that it would be governed by Nebraska law. The RPA and its attachments total 10 pages. SJ claims that it believed the RPA was a workers’ compensation insurance policy; that Applied fraudulently presented it as such; that the RPA is actually a retrospective rating insurance policy under which premiums would be based on claims paid during the previous period; and that it was promised possible huge rebates. SJ acknowledged that Applied is not an insurer and cannot issue workers’ compensation insurance. Applied represented that SJ purchased a primary workers’ compensation policy from Continental, which entered into a pooling agreement with California; all are Berskshire Hathaway companies. The pooling agreement was a reinsurance treaty. According to Applied, the RPA was not insurance, but an investment instrument. For 34 months, SJ paid monthly premiums of $40,000-$50,000, expecting a rebate. Claims paid on its behalf were $355,000 over three years. After the RPA expired, Applied declared that SJ owed $300,632.94. SJ did not pay. Applied filed a demand for arbitration. SJ sought declaratory relief as to the arbitration provision and rescission of the RPA. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration. The Third Circuit reversed. SJ’s challenges to the arbitration agreement apply to the contract as a whole, rather than to the arbitration agreement alone; the parties’ dispute is arbitrable. View "South Jersey Sanitation Co., Inc v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Vehicle Market Research, Inc. (VMR) sued Mitchell International, Inc. (Mitchell) to recover royalties Mitchell allegedly owed pursuant to a software licensing agreement. The jury returned a verdict for Mitchell, and VMR appealed. VMR argued: (1) the district court erred by allowing Mitchell, contrary to the law of the case doctrine, to cross-examine VMR’s sole shareholder on the value of VMR as he stated in his personal bankruptcy; and (2) the district court erred in omitting part of VMR’s proposed jury instruction on Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Vehicle Market Research v. Mitchell International" on Justia Law

Don Mealing, as Trustee of the Mealing Family Trust (Mealing), sought a judgment directing Diane Harkey for Board of Equalization 2014 (Campaign) to repay a loan Diane Harkey made to the Campaign, and to apply the proceeds to partially satisfy a nearly $1.6 million judgment Mealing obtained against Diane's husband, Dan Harkey. Mealing claimed the Campaign's indebtedness to Diane was a community property asset of Dan and Diane that could be used to partially satisfy the judgment. To preserve the Campaign's assets, Mealing applied ex parte for an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.240, subdivision (a), to prohibit the Campaign from making any payments to Diane on the loan. The trial court denied the application without explanation and Mealing appealed. On appeal, Mealing argued the trial court lacked discretion to deny his application because he made a prima facie showing that he obtained a judgment against Dan, the judgment remained unpaid, and Diane's loan to the Campaign was a marital asset that he could use to partially satisfy the judgment, and the Campaign presented no evidence to overcome that showing. Finding no error however, the Court of Appeals affirmed: Diane was not a judgment debtor, which was statutorily defined as the person against whom a judgment was rendered. View "Mealing v. Diane Harkey for Board of Equalization 2014" on Justia Law

While she was a student at Harvard Law School (HLS), Megon Walker was a member of the staff of the Journal of Law and Technology. During Walker’s final semester, concerns arose regarding a draft article (the Note) that Walker had written. After a hearing, the HLS Administrative Board (Board) found that the Note contained plagiarism. Walker received a formal reprimand, which ultimately appeared on her transcript. Walker graduated from HLS despite the reprimand, but the notation placed on transcript caused the loss of a lucrative employment offer. Walker filed suit against the President and Fellows of Harvard College, the then-Dean of Students at HLS, and the former Chair of the Board, seeking to have the notation removed from her transcript. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all counts. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly granted summary judgment against Walker on her claims of breach of contract and defamation. View "Walker v. Harvard University Fellows" on Justia Law

Medina & Medina, Inc., a Puerto Rico-based distributor of refrigerated food products, sued its principal, Hormel Foods Corp. Medina sought a declaration that Medina was the exclusive distributor of Hormel’s retail refrigerated products in Puerto Rico and alleged that Hormel violated an alleged exclusive distributorship agreement and hence Puerto Rico’s Dealer’s Contracts Act (Law 75) by selling Supreme Party Platters directly to Costco while bypassing Medina. Hormel counterclaimed, asserting that Medina was not an exclusive distributor. The district court ruled (1) Medina’s exclusivity claim was time-barred, and (2) notwithstanding the time bar for Medina’s exclusivity claim, Hormel’s sales of Supreme Party Platters to Costco violated Law 75. The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Medina’s exclusivity claim as presented was time-barred; but (2) the statute of limitations bar to recovery also extends to Medina’s Costco-related claim. View "Medina & Medina, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp." on Justia Law

BMW of North America, LLC and GMG Motors, Inc., doing business as BMW of San Diego (BMW San Diego) appealed a judgment awarding Nancy Goglin over $185,000 in attorney fees and costs for successfully settling her claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and other consumer protection statutes. Both BMW North America and BMW San Diego contended Goglin was not entitled to any attorney fees or costs because BMW San Diego offered an appropriate remedy before Goglin filed her complaint, which Goglin unreasonably refused to accept. Alternatively, BMW San Diego argued the fee award should have been be reduced because there was insufficient evidence to show Goglin's counsel's hours worked and hourly rate were reasonable given the litigation's lack of risk and complexity. After review, the Court of Appeals was not persuaded by these contentions and affirmed. View "Goglin v. BMW of North America" on Justia Law

Kiva Lodge Condominium Owners' Association, Inc. ("Kiva Lodge") was an Alabama nonprofit corporation formed for the purpose of administering and maintaining the Kiva Dunes Clubhouse and Condominium ("Kiva Dunes") located in Gulf Shores. In 2009, Kiva Lodge contracted with Hudak & Dawson Construction Co., Inc. ("Hudak") to be the general contractor for the remediation of deficiencies in Kiva Dunes buildings that were allowing water to enter the buildings. Hudak subcontracted the stucco and/or sealant portion of the work to Don Colvin d/b/a Colvin Plastering ("Colvin"). The Hanover Insurance Company ("Hanover"), as surety for Hudak, issued to Kiva Lodge a performance bond ensuring and/or securing the full performance of Hudak's contractual obligations. In September 2012, Kiva Lodge informed Hudak and Colvin of leaks and bubbling in the stucco exterior of the buildings at Kiva Dunes caused by water intrusion. Kiva Lodge alleged that Hudak and Colvin failed to determine and/or disclose the course of the problems and the proper scope of repairs necessary. It also alleged that Hanover breached the terms of its performance bond by failing to promptly remedy the default, complete the work within the scope of the contract in accordance with the terms and conditions, or arrange for payment of an alternative contractor to complete the work. Hanover filed a motion to dismiss Kiva Lodge's claims against Hanover on the ground that, under its performance bond, its claims were time-barred, falling outside of a two-year statute of limitations. In 2015, the circuit court heard arguments concerning Kiva Lodge's motion to compel arbitration, eventually granting the stay and ordering the parties to arbitration. The court also denied Hanover's motion to dismiss. Hudak, Colvin, and Hanover timely appealed the circuit court's order. After review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the trial court's order and affirmed. View "Hanover Insurance Co. v. Kiva Lodge Condominium Owners' Association, Inc." on Justia Law

Kentucky Oaks Mall Co. (the Mall) Owend a commercial real estate development in Paducah. SM Newco Paducah, LLC (Newco) owned a building located within that development that had been vacant and deteriorating for more than a decade. The Mall filed suit to compel the enforcement of Newco’s obligation to keep the building in good condition. When the Mall learned that Newco was considering the possibility of demolishing the building, it filed in the pending litigation a motion for a temporary injunction to stop the demolition. Eventually, counsel for the Mall tendered a proposed order designated as a temporary injunction, and the circuit court entered the temporary injunction over Newco’s objection. Newco filed a motion for interlocutory relief pursuant to Ky. R. Civ. P. 65.07. The court of appeals denied the motion. Newco then moved for interlocutory relief in the Supreme Court under Ky. R. Civ. P. 65.09. The Supreme Court denied Newco’s motion, holding that Newco failed to show the “extraordinary cause” required by Rule 65.09 for obtaining such relief. View "SM Newco Paducah, LLC v. Kentucky Oaks Mall Co." on Justia Law