Plaintiffs filed suit against 24 Hour Fitness, alleging that their membership contracts did not strictly comply with several technical provisions of the Texas Health Spa Act, Tex. Occ. Code Ann. 702.304, 702.305, 702.401, 702.402(a)(2). The district court dismissed the suit based on lack of standing. Because plaintiffs are not entitled to a full refund of their membership dues, and because 24 Hour’s alleged violations of the Act did not cause plaintiffs actual damages or any other form of economic harm, plaintiffs have sustained no economic injury. Furthermore, plaintiffs have not suffered a non-economic injury where plaintiffs have suffered no cognizable statutory injury under the Act. The Act does not authorize members to sue health clubs for technical statutory violations which cause the member no harm. Moreover, the Act does not authorize health club members to recover statutory or nominal damages for mere technical violations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment because plaintiffs lack Article III standing. View "Wendt v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal involves a breach of contract dispute between the parties regarding the proper configuration and installation of rooftop air handling units for passenger boarding bridges. The court concluded it was error to grant summary judgment for INET on the basis that DFW first breached the contract. The record contains disputes of material fact regarding which party prevented performance by failing to fully cooperate in arriving at a solution once the parties discovered defects. Accordingly, the court reversed the grants of summary judgment for INET and Hartford and remanded this case for the claims to proceed to a fact finder. Because the district court granted INET damages and fees based on its summary judgment rulings, the court also vacated those awards. View "Dallas/Fort Worth Int'l Airport Bd. v. Inet Airport Sys." on Justia Law

For more than a century, Asarco LLC and its predecessors operated a lead smelting facility (the Site). For almost fifty years, Atlantic Richfield Company’s predecessor operated a zinc fuming plant on land leased from Asarco at the Site. Atlantic Richfield subsequently sold the plant and related property to Asarco. Due to extensive contamination at the Site, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that Asarco was obligated to fund cleanup efforts at the Site. After conducting extensive remediation at the Site, Asarco filed a complaint seeking contribution pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) from Atlantic Richfield, asserting that Atlantic Richfield was liable under CERCLA for its equitable share of costs related to the Site’s cleanup. The federal district court granted summary judgment for Atlantic Richfield, concluding that Asarco’s claims were untimely under CERCLA’s statute of limitations. Asarco then commenced the present action against Atlantic Richfield alleging several state-law claims. The district court granted Atlantic Richfield’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the doctrine of claim preclusion barred Asarco’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that claim preclusion barred Asarco’s action because Asarco could have brought its state-law claims before the federal district court in Asarco I. View "Asarco LLC v. Atlantic Richfield Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against LP, alleging claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, unfair or deceptive practices, and breach of warranty against LP for the purported defectiveness of its TrimBoard product. The district court granted summary judgment to LP. In order for plaintiff to prevail on his fraudulent-misrepresentation claim under Iowa law, he must prove eight elements. At issue is the sixth element - justifiable reliance. In this case, plaintiff's builder's affidavit is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the builder - a third party - received a communication from LP that he subsequently communicated to plaintiff and upon which plaintiff relied. Therefore, the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's fraudulent-misrepresentation claim. Likewise, plaintiff's unfair or deceptive practices claims fail. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in enforcing the terms of LP's limited warranty where the mere fact that the limited warranty does not compensate plaintiff for the entirety of his damages does not mean it has failed of its essential purpose, and where the limited warranty is neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Brown v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp." on Justia Law

St. Jude filed suit against Jose B. de Castro and Biosense, alleging state law claims of breach of contract and tortious interference. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that the Minnesota choice-of-law provision in St. Jude's employment agreement with de Castro is valid because the parties acted in good faith and without the intent to evade the law; the district court correctly concluded that St. Jude's term-of-years employment agreement with de Castro is valid and enforceable under Minnesota law and that Biosense was liable for tortuously interfering with that agreement; the district court correctly concluded that St. Jude could recover damages for lost profits based on Biosense's tortious interference; and the district court correctly determined that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Biosense caused St. Jude to lose profits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. v. Biosense Webster, Inc." on Justia Law

Jerry and Linda Lumley appealed a judgment dismissing their action against Elaine Kapusta for specific performance of an oral contract to convey real property located in Mountrail County. The Lumleys were long-time tenant farmers of Kapusta's property in Mountrail County. Kapusta resided in Virginia and wanted to sell her North Dakota property. Linda Lumley and Kapusta had telephone conversations in 2012 about the Lumleys purchasing some of the property. Linda Lumley told Kapusta she would obtain an appraisal of the property. Dacotah Bank conducted an "Agricultural Real Estate In-House Evaluation," which specifically warned "[t]his evaluation is not an appraisal," and valued the property at $525,827. Butch Haugland, who is not a licensed appraiser, also conducted an evaluation and valued the property $60,000 higher than the bank's valuation. Based on the bank's valuation, the Lumleys sent Kapusta a cashier's check for $525,827, deeds to be executed by Kapusta, and a note instructing her that "[t]he purchase of all the property is contingent upon all documents being signed, notarized, and returned the same day as signed." Kapusta endorsed and deposited the check in a bank and signed the deeds, but did not return the executed deeds to the Lumleys. According to Kapusta and her daughter, they telephoned Linda Lumley and told her they did not understand why there had been no appraisal of the property and they wanted one performed. Shortly afterward, Kapusta returned the money to the Lumleys. The Lumleys thereafter sued Kapusta for specific performance of their alleged oral contract to convey the property. Because the district court's finding that there was no enforceable oral contract between the parties was not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "Lumley v. Kapusta" on Justia Law

This litigation arose from the construction of a "Johnny Janosik" furniture store in Laurel. The Plaintiff-appellant LTL Acres Limited Partnership (LTL) was the owner of the Janosik Building. Defendant-appellee Butler Manufacturing Company (Butler) provided pre-engineered components which were used to build the roof and exterior walls. Defendant-appellee Dryvit Systems, Inc. (Dryvit) supplied a product used on the exterior finish of the walls, to protect and seal them. Dryvit warranted its product for ten years from the "date of substantial completion of the project." The building was completed in 2006. Unfortunately, the building had issues with water infiltration from the beginning. By February 2012, cladding began to crack and buckle. The water infiltration and delamination persisted through 2013 despite attempts to fix the issues. LTL brought this action in 2013, alleging breach of warranty, breach of contract, and negligence claims against Butler; and breach of warranty and breach of contract claims against Dryvit. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to both Butler and Dryvit on the grounds that the actions against both were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. It held that the action against Butler was barred by 10 Del. C. sec. 8127,which is a six year statute of limitations relating to alleged defective construction of an improvement to real property. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that summary judgment in favor of Butler was proper. The Superior Court ruled that LTL’s action against Dryvit was barred by a four year statute of limitations set forth in 6 Del. C. sec. 2-725. Dryvit gave LTL a ten year express warranty. The Superior Court described the warranty as a “repair and replacement warranty” and reasoned that such a warranty cannot be one that extended to future performance. It therefore concluded that the statute of limitations for an action on the warranty expired not later than four years after the Dryvit product was tendered and applied to the building; that is, not later than four years after 2006. The Supreme Court concluded that grant of summary judgment in favor of Dryvit was inappropriate, and had to be reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "LTL Acres Limited Partnership v. Butler Manufacturing Co." on Justia Law

This case arose under California's Unclaimed Property Law (UPL). Plaintiff Vanacore and Associates, Inc., dba Vanacore International (Vanacore) was a private investigation firm that specialized in the recovery of unclaimed property. Vanacore entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with defendant Kenneth Rosenfeld. The MOU contemplated that Vanacore would locate and recover shares of stock belonging to Rosenfeld in exchange for a fee. After signing the agreement, Rosenfeld found and recovered the shares himself and refused to pay Vanacore's fee. Vanacore sued for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Rosenfeld demurred on the ground that the MOU violated the Unclaimed Property Law, which precluded certain asset recovery agreements. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding the MOU illegal and unenforceable. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Vanacore and Associates, Inc. v. Rosenfeld" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Santander, seeking damages for breach of contract and alleging a violation of the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC), Md. Code, Comm. Law 12-1001, et seq. The dispute stemmed from plaintiff's use of a loan she obtained through a retail installment contract (RISC) to finance the purchase of a vehicle. The court concluded that the district court correctly enforced the parties' arbitration agreement because the district court properly concluded that the arbitration agreement was a term of a contract that the parties entered into, and that the arbitration agreement was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 2. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Galloway v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants, retirees of the ACC, alleged that the ACC breached contractual obligations to provide health benefits to eligible retirees. The district court granted the ACC's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. At issue is whether the contract between the ACC and the appellants is entire or divisible. The court concluded that the contract is divisible because it involved successive payments of an uncertain amount for an indefinite period of time and does not allow a plaintiff to recover the entirety of the breaching party's obligation. Accordingly, the statute of limitations “runs separately as to each payment [of healthcare premiums and cost indemnification] when it becomes due.” Therefore, appellants may pursue contract claims for each alleged breach occurring within the limitations period. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wood v. Unified Gov't of Athens-Clarke Cnty." on Justia Law