The case involves PB Legacy, Inc., a Texas-based shrimp breeding company, and American Mariculture, Inc., a Florida-based company that operated a shrimp breeding facility. PB Legacy had a contract with American Mariculture to breed shrimp. However, PB Legacy failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, including removing its shrimp from the facility on time. When American Mariculture threatened to harvest the abandoned shrimp, PB Legacy sued in state court. After a failed attempt to resolve the dispute, American Mariculture used the shrimp to launch a competing company, American Penaeid, Inc. PB Legacy then sued American Mariculture, Penaeid, and their CEO, Robin Pearl, in federal court, alleging conversion, defamation, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.The case proceeded to a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. During the trial, the district judge had to leave before the jury returned its verdict. The parties agreed to have a magistrate judge receive the verdict. However, the magistrate judge also responded to several jury questions and rejected a request for clarification about the verdict. The jury awarded $4.95 million in damages to PB Legacy on each of their federal and state trade secret claims. Post-trial motions were filed and denied.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The defendants argued that the magistrate judge lacked authority to preside over the last three days of trial because the parties did not consent to the magistrate judge’s exercise of Article III authority. The court agreed, stating that while the parties had consented to the magistrate judge receiving the verdict, they had not consented to the magistrate judge performing non-ministerial duties such as responding to jury questions and rejecting a request for clarification about the verdict. The court vacated the judgment, remanded for a new trial, and dismissed the cross-appeal as moot. View "TB Foods USA, LLC v. American Mariculture, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the Florida Division of Emergency Management (the Division) and a private company, Essential Diagnostics, LLC, over a contract for the purchase of COVID-19 test kits. The Division contracted with Essential Diagnostics to buy 200,000 COVID-19 test kits for $2.2 million. However, Essential claimed that the Division ordered 600,000 tests but only paid for 200,000. The Division, on the other hand, insisted that it only ever agreed to buy 200,000 tests and that it paid for them in full. Essential assigned its rights under the contract to Global Integrated Concepts, which sued the Division in Florida state court. However, the state court dismissed the complaint. Subsequently, Global and two other parties involved in the transaction sued the Division in federal district court in North Carolina, seeking to recover the same $4.4 million Global sought as damages in its state court suit.The Division moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the Division waived its sovereign immunity by contracting with the plaintiffs. The Division appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court found that the district court erred in concluding that the Division waived its sovereign immunity by contracting with the plaintiffs. The court clarified that the rules governing waiver of federal-law sovereign immunity in federal court come from federal law, not state law. The court concluded that the district court failed to distinguish between the defenses and immunities a State might enjoy under state law and the constitutionally protected sovereign immunity that States enjoy from suit in federal court. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Global Innovative Concepts, LLC v. State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management" on Justia Law

The Ministry of Defence of the State of Kuwait entered into three contracts with Joseph M. Naffa and his fictitious law firm, Naffa & Associates, LLP, for legal advice and representation in real estate transactions. The Ministry later discovered that Naffa was not authorized to practice law in the United States and that he had kept a credit meant for the Ministry from one of the real estate transactions. The Ministry sued Naffa and his firm for breach of contract and conversion of funds.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the Ministry's claims under Rule 12(b)(1), ruling that the Ministry had not pleaded damages sufficient to meet the amount in controversy requirement for federal court jurisdiction. The court also held that the agreements did not require Naffa to be a licensed attorney and that the Ministry could not show that it did not receive legal advice or that its outcome would have been different if it was represented by a licensed attorney.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court erred in dismissing the Ministry's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint contained sufficient allegations to invoke the court's diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that the Ministry had pleaded damages of at least $635,000, an amount that substantially exceeds the statutory minimum for federal court jurisdiction. The court vacated all other determinations made by the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ministry of Defence of the State of Kuwait v. Naffa" on Justia Law

The case involves Analog Technologies, Inc. ("ATI") and its CEO Dr. Gang Liu, who accused Analog Devices, Inc. ("ADI") of misappropriating trade secrets under federal and Massachusetts law. ATI claimed that they took reasonable measures to maintain the secrecy of development materials shared with ADI, and ADI violated its obligation to limit its use of those materials. The dispute originated from two agreements: a 2000 agreement, which included a confidentiality clause that expired five years after termination, and a 2015 agreement, which superseded the 2000 agreement and released ADI from any claims related to the 2000 agreement.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted ADI's motion to dismiss the claim, ruling that any restrictions on ADI's use of the materials had expired under the clear terms of the written agreement among the parties. The court also found that there were no trade secrets under the 2000 agreement still in existence to have been misappropriated in 2021.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court concluded that ADI did not misappropriate the development materials as the restrictions on ADI's use of these materials under the 2000 agreement had expired in 2011. Furthermore, the 2015 agreement released ADI from any remaining use restrictions. The court also rejected the argument that ADI had a duty to limit its use of the materials at the time of the alleged misappropriation, as such a duty did not exist under the 2015 agreement. View "Analog Technologies, Inc. v. Analog Devices, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between the owners of El Gran Combo, one of the most popular Puerto Rican bands in history, and the band's former lead vocalist, Carlos Aponte-Cruz. The dispute centers on the interpretation of the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995, which entitles the "recording artist or artists featured on [a] sound recording" to a 45% share of certain royalties that the recording generated. Aponte-Cruz argues that he is the "artist . . . featured" on certain El Gran Combo sound recordings for which he was the lead vocalist and is therefore entitled to his portion of the 45% share of the statutory royalties for those recordings. The owners of El Gran Combo, on the other hand, contend that the band as an independent entity distinct from any of its individual members is the "artist . . . featured" on those recordings.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico ruled in favor of the owners of El Gran Combo, finding that the band, as a distinct legal entity, was the group most prominently featured on the sound recordings and thus entitled to collect the royalties as the featured artist. The court also ruled that Rafael Ithier, as the sole owner of El Gran Combo, was entitled to collect the featured artist royalties due to the corporation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling. The appellate court concluded that even though the covers for the El Gran Combo albums that contain the disputed recordings refer only to the band itself and not to any of its individual members, Aponte-Cruz, as a "recording artist . . . featured" on the recordings in dispute, is entitled to his portion of the 45% share of the statutory royalties for those recordings. The court found that neither EGC Corp. nor Ithier is entitled to the 45% royalty share in the recordings at issue. View "Ithier v. Aponte Cruz" on Justia Law

A general contractor, Graycor Construction Company Inc., was involved in a dispute with a subcontractor, Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust, over unpaid invoices for flooring work performed on a movie theater project. Business Interiors submitted three separate applications for periodic payments, which Graycor neither approved nor rejected within the time limit set by the Prompt Pay Act. As a result, the applications were deemed approved under the Act. Business Interiors sued Graycor for breach of contract and other claims in the Superior Court. The Superior Court granted Business Interiors's motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim and entered separate and final judgment. Graycor appealed.Graycor argued that the original contract was not a "contract for construction" within the meaning of the Act, and that it had a valid impossibility defense due to its failure to pay. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the Act defines its scope broadly, and the subcontract at issue was a "contract for construction" under the Act. The Court also held that common-law defenses are not precluded by the Act, but a contractor that does not approve or reject an application for payment in compliance with the Act must pay the amount due prior to, or contemporaneous with, the invocation of any common-law defenses in any subsequent proceeding regarding enforcement of the invoices. As Graycor sought to exercise its defenses without ever paying the invoices, it could not pursue the defenses. The Court also vacated and remanded the rule 54 (b) certification to the motion judge for reconsideration. View "Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Company Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado was asked to review a case involving a dispute between the City of Aspen and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, Inc. The dispute centered around alleged construction defects in an affordable housing project overseen by the City of Aspen. The Association claimed that Aspen had breached express and implied warranties, and Aspen argued that the claims were barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), which provides immunity to public entities from claims for injury that lie in tort or could lie in tort.The lower court agreed with Aspen, ruling that the Association's claims sounded in tort, or could sound in tort, and were thus barred by the CGIA. The Association appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court reasoned that the Association's claims could only sound in contract, and thus were not barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the economic loss rule, which generally provides that a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of a contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the appellate court's decision. The court held that the economic loss rule has no bearing on whether the CGIA bars a plaintiff’s claims. The court clarified that the CGIA bars claims that could arise in both tort and contract, and that the economic loss rule cannot rescue an otherwise CGIA-barred claim. The case was remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings. View "City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System and IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. over the interpretation of a patent licensing agreement. The agreement, signed in 2000, pertained to a peptide used to test for Lyme disease in dogs. The agreement stipulated different royalty rates for different types of products, depending on what tests were included. The dispute arose over the interpretation of two royalty provisions, one for 1% and the other for 2.5%, which could both be read to apply to the same sales of goods. IDEXX Laboratories had been paying the lower royalty rate, but the University argued that the higher rate should have been applied.The trial court ruled in favor of the University, concluding that the licensing agreement was clear and unambiguous and that the University was entitled to recover the unpaid royalties claimed plus accrued interest. On appeal, IDEXX Laboratories argued for the first time that the licensing agreement was ambiguous. The court of appeals agreed, concluding that both interpretations of the royalty provisions were reasonable and conflicting, and therefore the agreement was ambiguous. It reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals. It found that the royalty provisions were not ambiguous when read in the context of the licensing agreement itself and the objective circumstances in which the agreement was produced. The court concluded that the provisions were most reasonably interpreted to require royalties on IDEXX Laboratories' products at the higher rate stipulated in the agreement. The court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. View "Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. IDEXX Laboratories, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the calculation of postjudgment interest on a series of loans between David Meiergerd and Qatalyst Corporation and Roland Pinto. Meiergerd had filed a complaint in 2007 seeking to recover on a series of loans that occurred between him and the appellees. In 2008, the district court granted Meiergerd’s motion for default judgment, ordering the appellees to pay Meiergerd a certain amount plus postjudgment interest “at the rate of 16% compounded annually ($58.97 per day).”The appellees initiated a separate proceeding in 2022, seeking to vacate or amend the judgment from the earlier proceedings. This new action was ultimately dismissed. Subsequently, in the original case, the court granted the appellees’ motion for revivor. The appellees then filed a “Motion for Satisfaction and Discharge of Judgments” related to the judgment against them. The district court calculated the amount of postjudgment interest due to Meiergerd by multiplying the per diem rate stated in the 2008 order, $58.97, by the number of days between the date of the 2008 order and the date of payment. The court found that the appellees’ checks had satisfied the amount due on the judgment, including postjudgment interest, costs, and attorney fees.Meiergerd appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, asserting that the computation of the amount due and owing in the satisfaction of judgment improperly used the specified per diem rate, but failed to apply compound interest on the postjudgment amount. He contended that the district court’s approval of this daily rate disregards the language in the 2008 order that stated that postjudgment interest would be “compounded annually.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the district court, and Meiergerd petitioned for further review.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court concluded that the 2008 order was ambiguous with respect to the manner of calculating postjudgment interest, and determined that the 2008 order provided for simple interest and did not introduce compound interest that had not been requested by Meiergerd or supported by prior conduct between the parties. View "Meiergerd v. Qatalyst Corp." on Justia Law

Joe Iskra and Rani Singh, the plaintiffs, entered into a contract to purchase a house from Kenneth Vinoski. Before closing, they hired a home inspection service that discovered a leak in the attic. The plaintiffs requested Vinoski to repair the leak before the sale, and Vinoski contracted Bear Roofing, LLC, the defendant, for the repair. The plaintiffs alleged that they were intended third-party beneficiaries of the contract between Vinoski and Bear, and that Bear breached the contract and an associated express warranty. They also claimed that Bear negligently performed the contracted repairs.The Jefferson Circuit Court entered a summary judgment in favor of Bear, ruling that the plaintiffs were not intended third-party beneficiaries of the contract between Vinoski and Bear. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to provide substantial evidence that Bear intended to bestow a direct benefit to them at the moment the contract was formed. The court also noted that the contract did not mention or refer to the plaintiffs, and there was no evidence that Bear intended for anyone other than Vinoski to receive the benefit of its work performance.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs presented evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Bear intended to bestow a direct benefit upon them. The court also found that the plaintiffs presented evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether they were covered under Bear's warranty. Lastly, the court found that the plaintiffs presented evidence showing that they had relied to their detriment on Bear's performance in repairing the leak, and that Bear had known that it had been hired to repair a leak noted in an inspection report prepared in contemplation of the imminent sale of the house. Therefore, the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of Bear on the plaintiffs' negligence claim. View "Iskra v. Bear Roofing, LLC" on Justia Law