After South Louisiana Ethanol filed for bankruptcy, CHS filed suit contending that South Louisiana Ethanol's option contract with Plaquemines constituted the assignment of a litigious right under Louisiana law, entitling CHS to redeem the litigious right by reimbursing Plaquemines for the cost of the option contract plus interest. The district court granted Plaquemines's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the sale fit within the statutory judicial-sale exception to redemption, as described by Bluefields S.S. Co. v. Lala Ferreras Cangelosi S.S. Co. and its predecessors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the law at issue did not apply to judicial sales. View "CHS, Inc. v. Plaquemines Holdings, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Bjorn Myklatun and his company, Plaintiff Oil Innovation, brought claims of tortious interference, fraud, and civil conspiracy against Chemical Equipment and Specialties, Inc. (CESI); its parent company, Flotek Industries; Flotek president Todd Sanner; and former Flotek CEO Jerry Dumas. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the claim of tortious interference and one of Plaintiffs’ two theories of fraud. A jury entered a verdict in favor of all Defendants on the civil conspiracy claim. The jury also found in favor of Sanner and Dumas on the narrowed claim of fraud, but it found for Plaintiffs on the fraud claim against CESI and Flotek. Plaintiffs appealed, also raising various evidentiary and other challenges relating to their damages on the fraud claim, and they contended the jury’s verdict on the civil conspiracy and fraud claims was facially inconsistent and required a new trial. Because the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Court did not address those other arguments. View "Myklatun, et al v. Halliburton Energy Services, et al" on Justia Law

Appellee Steven Wilson is a licensed optometrist, providing eye care services in Lowndes County as Wilson Eye Center (“WEC”). Appellees Cynthia McMurray, Jodie E. Summers, and David Price are also licensed optometrists employed by WEC. Prior to 2010, Spectera, Inc. had entered provider contracts ("Patriot contracts") with Wilson and McMurray and they became members of Spectera's panel of eye care providers. Summers was already on Spectera's panel of eye care providers. Under the Patriot contract, Spectera would reimburse appellees for the materials Spectera insureds used from WEC's inventory by paying appellees a fee for their materials' costs and by having Spectera insureds remit a materials copayment to appellees. Spectera decided to terminate its Patriot contracts and replace them with independent participating provider (IPP) agreements. After the trial court temporarily enjoined Spectera from enforcing its IPP agreement, Spectera sought to remove appellees Wilson, Summers, and McMurray from its approved panel of providers. The trial court enjoined Spectera from taking such action. Although Price was not on Spectera's provider panel, he alleged Spectera violated Georgia law by denying him membership on its panel because of his refusal to sign the IPP agreement. Upon considering the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted issued a permanent injunction precluding Spectera from enforcing the restrictions contained in the IPP agreement as to "any other licensed eye care provider on [Spectera's] provider panel" or those who had applied for admittance to the panel. Spectera appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in part and reversed in part. Upon review of Spectera's appeal, the Supreme Court concluded a portion of the IPP agreement violated Georgia law, and therefore sustained the Court of Appeals in one respect. However, because the IPP agreement did create the type of impermissible discrimination between classes of licensed eye care providers contemplated by the applicable law, the Court of Appeals was incorrect in concluding that the IPP agreement violated that particular subsection of the applicable law. Furthermore, the termination of any outstanding contracts with appellees Wilson, McMurray, and Summers should have been based on the lawful terms stated in the contracts and not based on a permanent court injunction. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Spectera, Inc. v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Stephen and Elizabeth Schultz contracted with Benchmark Builders, Inc. for the construction of a home. The Schultzes refused to close because they claimed the home was not built in conformance with the contract and Benchmark sued for specific performance or, in the alternative, for money damages for breach of contract. The Schultzes answered and filed a counterclaim for breach of contract seeking money damages for the return of earnest money they had paid and also for the value of certain fixtures they purchased and that had been installed in the home. They also sought attorney fees resulting from the alleged breach. The jury returned a verdict form that found for the Schultzes both as to Benchmark's claim and the Schultzes' counterclaim. The jury awarded the Schultzes zero dollars on the claim for light fixtures, zero dollars for return of the earnest money, and $16,555 on the claim for attorney fees. The Court of Appeals held the Schultzes were entitled, as the “prevailing party” to the award of attorney fees pursuant to the parties' contract and thus affirmed the award. The issue before the Supreme Court on appeal was whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the parties' contract allowed for an award of attorney fees to a party that recovered no money damages or other relief that it sought. Under the terms of the contract, the fact that the jury did not award actual damages did not mean the Schultzes could not be deemed the prevailing party to the lawsuit. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision. View "Benchmark Builders, Inc. v. Schultz" on Justia Law

This appeal involved two separate actions that were consolidated. In the first action, a married couple raised allegations of fraud and other claims against Residential Finance Corporation (RFC), which had brokered two refinancings of the couple's residential mortgage. The first action was consolidated with a foreclosure case filed later against the couple. Appellant and RFC were named as third-party defendants in the foreclosure case. After consolidation, the case was bifurcated on the basis of subject matter for trial purposes and was scheduled to go to trial only on the refinancing issues. Judge Robert Nichols denominated Appellant as a codefendant in that trial. Appellant field an action for a writ of prohibition to prevent Nichols from requiring him to be a defendant in the trial. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant could not establish the elements for a writ of prohibition, as Appellant had an adequate remedy at law and Nichols did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over Appellant. View "State ex rel. Shumaker v. Nichols" on Justia Law

DynCorp contracted with the U.S. Department of State to assist in the development of a civilian police force in Iraq and subcontracted with PMC for operations and maintenance support. PMC filed suit against DynCorp alleging that DynCorp breached its contract with PMC by making payments to one account instead of another. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of PMC's case against DynCorp as a sanction for its discovery malfeasance. The court rejected PMC's arguments on appeal because they did not support reversal of the district court's orders. View "Projects Mgmt. Co. v. DynCorp Int'l LLC" on Justia Law

Crockett’s former law firm subscribed to a LexisNexis legal research plan that allowed unlimited access to certain databases for a flat fee. Subscribers could access other databases for an additional fee. According to Crockett, LexisNexis indicated that a warning sign would display before a subscriber used a database outside the plan. Years after subscribing, Crockett complained that his firm was being charged additional fees without any warning that it was using a database outside the Plan. LexisNexis insisted on payment of the additional fees. The firm dissolved. Crockett’s new firm entered into a LexisNexis subscription agreement, materially identical to the earlier plan; it contains an arbitration clause. Crockett filed an arbitration demand against LexisNexis on behalf of two putative classes. One class comprised law firms that were charged additional fees. The other comprised clients onto whom such fees were passed. The demand sought damages of more than $500 million. LexisNexis sought a federal court declaration that the agreement did not authorize class arbitration. The district court granted LexisNexis summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. “The idea that the arbitration agreement … reflects the intent of anyone but LexisNexis is the purest legal fiction,” but the one-sided adhesive nature of the clause and the absence of a class-action right do not render it unenforceable. The court observed that Westlaw’s contract lacks any arbitration clause.View "Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Crockett" on Justia Law

Sasafrasnet, an authorized distributor of BP products, provided Joseph with notice of its intent to terminate his franchise based on three occasions when Sasafrasnet attempted to debit Joseph’s bank account to pay for fuel deliveries but payment was denied for insufficient funds. The district court denied Joseph a preliminary injunction, finding that Joseph failed to meet his burden for a preliminary injunction under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act 15 U.S.C. 2805(b)(2)(A)(ii). After a remand, the district court found that two of Joseph’s NSFs should count as “failures” under the PMPA justifying termination, at least for purposes of showing that he was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Joseph’s bank account was not adequately funded for the debit on two occasions because Joseph had decided to change banks, circumstances entirely within Joseph’s control. Given Joseph’s history of making late payments in substantial amounts because of insufficient funds (each was more than $22,000), the delinquent payments were not “technical” or “unimportant.” View "Joseph v. Sasafrasnet, LLC" on Justia Law

Bruce Martin filed suit against CTB for negligent misrepresentation and breach of express warranty after the power sweeps it purchased from CTB did not work. The court concluded that it's decision in Dannix Painting, LLC v. Sherwin-Williams foreclosed Bruce Martin's argument that the district court erred in concluding that Missouri's economic loss doctrine precluded its negligent misrepresentation claim. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to CTB on Bruce Martin's breach of express warranty claim. Under Indiana law, the court agreed with the district court that Bruce Martin had alleged a defect in the design of the sweeps that was not covered by CTB's warranty against "defects in material and workmanship." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bruce Martin Construction, Inc. v. CTB, Inc." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether Delaware’s personal injury protection (PIP) statute requires insurers to reserve PIP benefits for lost wages when requested. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a passenger in a car accident. While he was in a coma, his mother signed an assignment of insurance benefits in favor of the hospital. Plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the assignment. The hospital was promptly paid by the insurance company. When plaintiff later requested the insurers to reserve his PIP benefits for his past and future lost wages, he was informed that the benefits had been exhausted by the payment to the hospital. The Superior Court held sua sponte that the unchallenged assignment to the healthcare provider was invalid. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in deciding that uncontested issue. Because the assignment on behalf of the plaintiff resulted in the exhaustion of his PIP benefits before the plaintiff requested the reservation of PIP benefits for his lost wages, the legal issue of whether the insurer was required to reserve PIP benefits for lost wages is moot. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Davis" on Justia Law