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

The case involves Hahnenkamm, LLC and the United States Forest Service. Hahnenkamm sold a parcel of land to the Forest Service. The purchase price was based on an appraisal that was supposed to comply with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, also known as the Yellow Book. Hahnenkamm later sued the Forest Service, claiming that the appraisal did not comply with the Yellow Book and was not independent, thus breaching the purchase agreement.The United States Court of Federal Claims found in favor of Hahnenkamm, ruling that the Forest Service had breached the agreement by not supporting the purchase price with an independent, Yellow Book-compliant appraisal. The court rejected the government's defenses of waiver and equitable estoppel and awarded damages to Hahnenkamm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that Hahnenkamm could not have reasonably relied on the contractual representation that the appraisal was independent. However, the court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings to determine whether Hahnenkamm reasonably relied on the representation that the appraisal was Yellow Book-compliant. The court also remanded the lower court's rejection of the equitable estoppel defense.On cross-appeal, Hahnenkamm argued that the lower court erred in its damages determination. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's damages determination, finding no abuse of discretion in its analysis. View "HAHNENKAMM, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Apprio, Inc., a government contractor, and its former employee, Neil Zaccari. Zaccari, a Senior Technical Manager at Apprio, had developed a regulatory compliance software prior to his employment. During his tenure, he updated the software, demonstrated it at work, and handed it over to Apprio upon request. Apprio then sent Zaccari a document titled “Proprietary Information and Assignment of Inventions Agreement,” which Zaccari acknowledged through Apprio’s human resources portal. After his termination, Zaccari copyrighted the updated software and sued Apprio for breaching the agreement when it allegedly forced him to turn over a copy of the software to an Apprio client. In response, Apprio countersued Zaccari for breaching the agreement when he refused to assign his rights in the updated software to Apprio.The District Court combined the cases, dismissed Zaccari’s case for failure to state a claim, and granted partial and full summary judgment for Apprio with respect to contractual assignment of rights in the updated software and its breach of contract claim. Zaccari appealed, arguing that the agreement is not an enforceable contract and, alternatively, that the agreement neither supports the assignment of his rights in the updated software to Apprio nor a finding that he breached the agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed with Zaccari's arguments. The court held that Zaccari’s “acknowledgment” of the agreement created an enforceable contract that requires Zaccari to assign his rights in the updated software to Apprio. Accordingly, Zaccari breached the binding agreement by failing to assign those rights to Apprio and disclosing the updated software’s underlying code to the U.S. Copyright Office in order to obtain the copyright. The court affirmed the District Court's decision. View "Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari" on Justia Law

In two consolidated property tax disputes, Oncor Electric Delivery Company NTU, LLC sought a multimillion-dollar reduction in the total values of certain electric transmission lines in the 2019 certified appraisal rolls for the Wilbarger County Appraisal District and Mills Central Appraisal District. Oncor’s predecessor had agreed to the lines’ value in each county to settle its protests of the Districts’ initial appraised values, but Oncor now contends that these agreements are void due to mutual mistake.Previously, Oncor filed unsuccessful motions for correction of the appraisal rolls with each County Appraisal Review Board (ARB) and then sued in district court in Wilbarger and Mills Counties. The trial and appellate courts below provided conflicting answers on whether questions regarding the effect of a Section 1.111(e) agreement—such as its validity and scope—are relevant to a trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit for judicial review under Section 42.01 of the Tax Code.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the resolution of such questions does not implicate jurisdiction and remanded the cases to the trial courts for further proceedings. The court did not reach the merits of the parties’ disputes about whether Oncor has identified errors eligible for correction under Sections 25.25(c) or (d) of the Tax Code, whether any such errors fall within the scope of the parties’ Section 1.111(e) settlement agreements, and whether the doctrine of mutual mistake is an available defense to such agreements. View "MILLS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY NTU LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Image API, LLC, a company that provided services to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from 2009 to 2015. Image's job was to manage a processing center for incoming mail related to Medicaid and other benefits programs. The agreement between the parties stated that HHSC would compensate Image using its “retrospective cost settlement model”. In 2016, HHSC notified Image that an independent external firm would conduct an audit of Image’s performance and billing for the years 2010 and 2011. The audit concluded that HHSC had overpaid Image approximately $440,000 in costs relating to bonuses, holiday pay, overtime, and other unauthorized labor expenses. HHSC then sought to recoup the overpayments by deducting from payments on Image’s invoices.The trial court granted HHSC’s motion for summary judgment and signed a final judgment for the commissioner. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed Image’s entire suit for want of jurisdiction. Image sought review.The Supreme Court of Texas held that Image is a Medicaid contractor under Section 32.0705(a), and that the deadline in Section 32.0705(d) for auditing HHSC’s Medicaid contractors is mandatory. However, the court ruled that HHSC’s failure to meet the deadline does not preclude it from using the result of the audit or pursuing recoupment of overcharges found in the audit. The court affirmed the part of the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing Image’s claims arising from the 2016 audit for lack of jurisdiction, reversed the part of the judgment dismissing the remainder of Image’s suit, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "IMAGE API, LLC v. YOUNG" on Justia Law