Plaintiffs filed a class action suit alleging that CUT violated the Missouri Uniform Code (Mo UCC) and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) by participating in a subprime motor vehicle lending program administered by now-bankrupt Centrix. The court concluded that plaintiffs' MO UCC claims were time-barred whether they were subject to the five-year statute of limitations in section 516.120(2) or the three-year statute of limitations in section 516.130(2); the court denied plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record and to take judicial notice of various Missouri legislative materials related to Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.420; the five year statute of limitations in section 516.120(2) applies in this case because plaintiffs' MMPA claims are actions based upon a liability created by a statute other than a penalty; even if section 516.120(5) applied to plaintiffs' MMPA claims, they are still time-barred because the causes of action accrued no later than March 2005 under either section 516.120(2) or 516.120(5). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that the claims were time-barred. View "Huffman, et al. v. Credit Union of Texas" on Justia Law

Velicia Carter was injured in an automobile collision with Jeova Oliviera. It was alleged that Oliviera was under the influence of alcohol at the time. Oliviera had an auto liability insurance policy with GEICO General Insurance Company with a $30,000 per person liability limit. Carter was insured by Progressive Mountain Insurance Company, including uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage of $25,000 per person. Carter sued Oliviera and served Progressive as her UM carrier, and entered into a settlement in which GEICO paid the $30,000 limit of Oliviera's policy, and Carter executed a limited liability release. It allocated $29,000 of GEICO's payment to punitive damages and $1,000 to compensatory damages. Progressive answered the suit as Carter's UM carrier and sought summary judgment on the UM claim, which the trial court granted, ruling that, by imposing the condition that $29,000 of the liability coverage limit be allocated to the payment of punitive damages, Carter failed to meet a prerequisite for recovery of the UM benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that, by allocating a portion of the payment to punitive damages, rather than allocating all of the payment to compensatory damages, Carter failed to exhaust the limits of Oliviera's liability policy, and, therefore, forfeited the ability to make a claim on her UM policy. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to determine if that Court properly applied the motor vehicle insurance limited liability release provision of OCGA 33-24-41.1. Finding that the Court of Appeals erred, the Supreme Court reversed that Court's judgment. View "Carter v. Progressive Mountain Ins." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether alleged misrepresentations made by Defendants were made “in connection with” a transaction in covered securities under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). Plaintiffs, investors in a licensed non-diversified investment company, filed a putative class action in Puerto Rico court against the Fund and others alleging fraud or misrepresentation in violation of Puerto Rico law after the Fund invested the majority of its assets in notes sold by Lehman Brothers, resulting in the Fund adopting a plan of liquidation. Defendants removed the action to the federal district court, asserting that it fell within the ambit of the SLUSA. Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought remand on jurisdictional grounds. Ultimately, the district court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss premised on SLUSA preclusion. The First Circuit vacated the judgment of dismissal and remitted with instructions to return the case to the Puerto Rico Court, holding that the link between the misrepresentations alleged and the covered securities in the Fund’s portfolio was too fragile to support a finding of SLUSA preclusion under Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice. View "Hidalgo-Velez v. San Juan Asset Mgmt., Inc." on Justia Law

During their marriage, Brian Shabino and Sandra Wichman borrowed money from Sandra’s mother, Mary Ann Wichman, to use as a down payment on the purchase of their home. When Sandra and Brian divorced in 2003, the divorce decree apportioned to Brian the marital home as well as the remaining debt to Mary Ann. Brian failed to repay Mary Ann, In 2012, Mary Ann brought suit for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and enforcement of the divorce decree. The circuit court concluded that a portion of Mary Ann’s breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that Mary Ann could not enforce the terms of the divorce decree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in determining that Mary Ann could not enforce the divorce decree; and (2) the circuit court did not err in ruling that Mary Ann could not recover the entirety of the debt under the statute of limitations. View "Wichman v. Shabino" on Justia Law

In this contract dispute between a home health care agency, Visiting Nurse Association of Florida, Inc. (VNA), and a hospital, Jupiter Medical Center, Inc. (JMC), an arbitration panel granted VNA damages. JMC filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, alleging that the arbitration panel construed the contract containing an arbitration provision to be an unlawful agreement. The circuit court dismissed the motion to vacate and granted the motion to enforce the award. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a court must determine whether a contract is legal prior to enforcing an arbitral award based on the contract. The Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District’s decision, holding (1) the claim that an arbitration panel construed a contract containing an arbitration provision to be an unlawful agreement is an insufficient basis to vacate an arbitrator’s decision pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act or the Florida Arbitration Code; and (2) the arbitration panel did not exceed its powers in this case. View "Visiting Nurse Ass'n of Fla., Inc. v. Jupiter Med. Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether Florida law recognizes a “bright-line rule” that distinguishes an assignment from a sublicense. This complex commercial litigation involved an agreement wherein a licensee transferred its entire interest in a patent license agreement except for one day. A federal district court concluded that the agreement was a prohibited assignment and not a sublicense. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit certified the question of whether a “bright-line” rule could be applied to determine whether the licensee’s transfer of its interest constituted an assignment or a sublicense. The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that this legal determination depends on a multiple of factors, and the ultimate resolution of whether the transfer of the licensee’s interest constitutes an assignment or a sublicense is a mixed question of law and fact. View "MDS (Canada) Inc. v. Rad Source Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

After enXco did not obtain a permit by a date certain, thus failing to satisfy a condition precedent to a contract concerning the construction of a wind-energy project, NSP terminated the contract. enXco filed suit against NSP for breach of contract. On appeal, enXco challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for NSP. Assuming, without deciding, that Minnesota courts would apply the doctrine of temporary impracticability to conditions precedent for use as a sword, the court concluded that the doctrine has no application on these facts. Therefore, the district court correctly declined to apply the doctrine of temporary impracticability. The court declined to apply the doctrine of disproportionate forfeiture and left the parties to their bargain. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "enXco Dev. Corp. v. Northern States Power Co." on Justia Law

This case arose out of plaintiff Ferguson Fire's efforts to obtain payment for materials it supplied to defendant Preferred Fire Protection, LLC for defendant Immedion's data center. In 2007, Immedion, a telecommunications company, hired Rescom, L.L.C. to be the general contractor for improvements planned for its data center on property Immedion leased in Greenville. Rescom, in turn, hired Preferred Fire, a fire sprinkler company, as a subcontractor. In addition, Immedion directly hired Preferred Fire under a separate contract to install a special "pre-action" fire suppression system1 in its data center. To complete this work, Preferred Fire purchased materials from Ferguson Fire. Ferguson Fire began delivering materials to Preferred Fire in August, 2007, and the deliveries continued through October. In September, while its deliveries were in progress, Ferguson Fire sent a "Notice of Furnishing Labor and Materials" to Immedion advising it in relevant part that it had been employed by Preferred Fire to deliver labor, services, or materials with an estimated value of $15,000.00 to Immedion's premises. The Notice of Furnishing advised that it was being given as "a routine procedure to comply with certain state requirements that may exist," and that it was not a lien, nor any reflection on Preferred Fire's credit standing. Immedion paid Preferred approximately half of the contract price for installation of the system before receiving Ferguson Fire's Notice of Furnishing. After receiving the Notice, Immedion issued two additional checks to Preferred Fire for the unpaid balance of the contract price. Immedion paid everything it owed to Rescom, and it also paid its contractor Preferred Fire in full under the separate contract for the fire suppression system. However, Preferred Fire never paid Ferguson Fire for the materials it furnished. Ferguson brought a mechanic's lien foreclosure action against Immedion and Preferred Fire. Ferguson Fire contended (and the Supreme Court agreed) that the Court of Appeals erred in adding requirements to S.C Code Ann. 29-5-40 (2007) (governing a notice of furnishing) that were not in the statute itself and in concluding Ferguson Fire did not establish an effective lien upon which a foreclosure action could be premised. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ferguson Fire v. Preferred Fire" on Justia Law

Shuffle makes consumer grade automatic card-shuffling equipment. Wolff distributes casino grade gaming equipment. In 2010 the two signed a letter of intent that Shuffle, with financial assistance from Wolff, would develop casino-grade shuffling equipment, and Wolff would become its exclusive distributor. Before development of the new equipment was completed, Shuffle ended the relationship and sought a declaratory judgment that the agreement was not an enforceable contract. Wolff counterclaimed, claiming breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The district judge granted summary judgment in favor of Shuffle with respect both to its claim for declaratory relief and to Wolff’s counterclaims, essentially rescinding the agreement. In its complaint, Shuffle acknowledged that it would have to return $124,940 earnest money to Wolff, but the order failed to mention the earnest money. Shuffle ignored Wolff’s request for a refund. Wolff moved, under FRCP 60, that the court order Shuffle to refund the money. The judge entered a post-judgment order requiring the refund, without mentioning Rule 60 or any other ground for amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that “if the flaw lies in the translation of the original meaning to the judgment, then Rule 60(a) allows a correction.” The correction just made explicit what the parties must have assumed; that with the draft agreement rescinded the earnest money had to be returned. View "Shuffle Tech Int'l, LLC v. Wolff Gaming, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2003, local districts established for the promotion of tourism were legislatively dissolved to make way for larger regional districts serving that same purpose. Plaintiff, a Massachusetts corporation, filed suit against one of the regional districts (Defendant) seeking to hold Defendant liable for damages under a contract that Plaintiff had executed with one of the local districts (Local District). The district court certified questions of law to the Supreme Court regarding the satisfaction of contingent liabilities of the legislatively dissolved local districts. The Supreme Court answered (1) Defendant is not the legal successor to the Local District, as the legislature did not intend to make the regional districts the legal successors to the local districts; and (2) if the Local District transferred any of its assets to another entity and Plaintiff can establish that the assets were fraudulently conveyed, that entity may be responsible for the Local District’s obligations to the extent of the value of the assets received. View "Single Source, Inc. v. Cent. Reg'l Tourism Dist., Inc." on Justia Law