Krishna P. Sharma Poudel and Binod Dhakal worked as Nepalese-English interpreters for Mid Atlantic Professionals, Inc. (MAPI), serving the U.S. Department of State in Kabul, Afghanistan. They alleged that MAPI failed to pay them all contracted-for and promised wages, including overtime, per diem allowances, and reimbursement for annual trips home. Their employment agreements, executed in Maryland, included a choice-of-law provision specifying Maryland law.The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, asserting violations of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL) and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL). MAPI moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Maryland’s Wage Laws do not apply extraterritorially, and since the plaintiffs performed no work in Maryland, their claims were barred. The district court granted MAPI’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Wage Laws lacked an express extraterritorial provision and that the plaintiffs did not perform any work in Maryland.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, agreeing that Maryland’s Wage Laws do not apply extraterritorially without some work being performed in Maryland. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the choice-of-law provision in their employment agreements allowed them to bring claims under Maryland’s Wage Laws, noting that Maryland precedent does not support such an extension. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could not maintain their claims under the Wage Laws because they did not perform any work in Maryland. View "Poudel v. Mid Atlantic Professionals, Inc." on Justia Law

Jose Pedro Garcia was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture containing fentanyl. He pled guilty to the charge. While awaiting sentencing, Garcia assaulted another detainee. This incident led the probation officer to determine that Garcia was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, a determination the Government adopted. The district court agreed and denied any reduction for acceptance of responsibility.Garcia appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the Government breached the plea agreement by not recommending a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Garcia did not raise this issue in the district court, so the appellate court reviewed for plain error. Garcia contended that the plea agreement required the Government to move for a three-level reduction under § 3E1.1. However, the plea agreement only obligated the Government to move for the third point of reduction under § 3E1.1(b) if the district court awarded the initial two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a). The agreement did not restrict the Government's arguments regarding the initial two-level reduction.The Fifth Circuit found that the Government's argument against the reduction was consistent with a reasonable understanding of the plea agreement and did not constitute a breach. Since Garcia did not demonstrate that the Government breached the plea agreement and did not argue that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement was invalid, the court dismissed the appeal. The court did not consider Garcia’s remaining arguments challenging the denial of the reduction under § 3E1.1. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Jason Ziemann, the plaintiff, became involved in the operation of Grosz Wrecking, a business owned by his grandmother, Juanita Grosz, after her husband passed away. Ziemann moved into a home on the business property in 2014. In 2022, Grosz sought to evict Ziemann after he refused to purchase the home. Ziemann then sued Grosz, alleging they had an oral partnership agreement and sought a declaration of partnership, accounting, and dissolution, along with claims for breach of fiduciary duties and tortious interference with a business relationship. Grosz denied the partnership and counterclaimed for trespass.The District Court of McLean County denied Ziemann’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling factual issues existed regarding the partnership. The court granted Grosz’s motion, dismissing Ziemann’s claims for tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty, citing inadmissible hearsay and lack of evidence for damages. After a bench trial, the court found the parties had formed a partnership with specific profit-sharing terms and dismissed Grosz’s trespass claim, allowing Ziemann to remain on the property until the business was dissolved. The court ordered the liquidation of partnership assets and awarded Ziemann costs.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It affirmed the lower court’s findings that a partnership existed and that Grosz contributed property to it. The court also upheld the dismissal of Grosz’s trespass claim and Ziemann’s claims for tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty. However, it reversed the lower court’s decision not to apply the default partnership winding up provisions under N.D.C.C. § 45-20-07. The case was remanded for the district court to enter judgment consistent with this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of costs and disbursements to Ziemann as the prevailing party. View "Ziemann v. Grosz" on Justia Law

Bijan Boutiques, LLC (Bijan) appealed a summary judgment in favor of Rosamari Isong. Bijan sought to void the property distribution in the marital dissolution judgment between Isong and her former husband, Richard Milam Akubiro, under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA). Bijan argued that the judgment was fraudulent as it awarded Isong the couple’s only U.S. property, making it difficult to enforce a judgment Bijan had against Akubiro without incurring significant expenses to pursue foreign assets.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County ruled that Bijan’s complaint was barred by Family Code section 916, subdivision (a)(2), which protects property received in a marital dissolution from being liable for a spouse’s debt unless the debt was assigned to the receiving spouse. The court found that the marital dissolution judgment was not a product of a negotiated settlement but was adjudicated by the court, thus not subject to the UVTA.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that Family Code section 916 precludes Bijan from enforcing its judgment against the property awarded to Isong. The court distinguished this case from Mejia v. Reed, which allowed UVTA claims against marital settlement agreements, noting that the dissolution judgment here was court-adjudicated, not a private agreement. The court also rejected Bijan’s arguments that the judgment was obtained by fraud and that the Chino property should not have been subject to division, affirming that the property was presumed to be community property under Family Code section 2581.The appellate court concluded that Bijan could not satisfy its judgment against Akubiro by executing on the property awarded to Isong and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Isong. View "Bijan Boutiques v. Isong" on Justia Law

Perdue Farms operates a poultry-processing plant in Indiana. In August 2018, an L&B Transport driver mistakenly delivered aluminum chloride instead of bleach, causing a chemical reaction that damaged the plant. Perdue sued L&B Transport, its driver, U.S. Security Associates, and three security guards employed by U.S. Security, seeking over $1.2 million in damages. The security-service contract between Perdue and U.S. Security included a forum-selection clause designating Maryland federal court as the venue for disputes.The Daviess Circuit Court dismissed Perdue’s claims against U.S. Security and its employees, citing the forum-selection clause. Perdue appealed, arguing the clause was unenforceable and did not apply to the employees. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the clause unenforceable due to the potential for multiple lawsuits in different jurisdictions. A dissenting judge argued that Perdue, as a sophisticated entity, should adhere to its contractual agreement.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the forum-selection clause is enforceable against U.S. Security, requiring Perdue to litigate those claims in Maryland federal court. However, the court found that the clause does not apply to the individual employees, as they were not parties to the contract and not in privity with U.S. Security. The court rejected the argument that the employees' duties under the contract made them subject to the forum-selection clause.The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of claims against U.S. Security for improper venue but reversed the dismissal of claims against the individual employees. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Perdue Farms Inc. v. L & B Transport, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, Randall C. Belyea was the sole shareholder and president of Belyea Enterprises, Inc. (BEI), which had a contract with FedEx. Due to a misdemeanor charge, FedEx refused to renew the contract with Belyea, leading him to transfer his interest in BEI to his fiancée, Heather A. Campbell, under the understanding that she would be the owner in name only while he continued to run the business. However, in 2018, Campbell terminated Belyea's employment and restricted his access to BEI's bank accounts.The Superior Court (Aroostook County) initially granted Campbell’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Belyea’s conversion claim and later entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of Campbell on Belyea’s breach of contract claim, despite a jury verdict in Belyea’s favor. The court found that there was insufficient evidence of an enforceable contract between Belyea and Campbell, as the terms were too vague and indefinite.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the terms of the alleged contract between Belyea and Campbell were not sufficiently definite to form an enforceable contract. The terms did not clearly define the roles and obligations of each party, the duration of the contract, or the details regarding a possible reconveyance of BEI to Belyea. Consequently, the court also upheld the judgment in favor of Campbell on the conversion claim, as Belyea did not have a legal interest in BEI in 2018. View "Belyea v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Bruce Molzan, a well-known chef, filed a lawsuit against Bellagreen Holdings, LLC, and other associated entities and individuals, alleging trademark infringement and other claims under the Lanham Act and Texas law. Molzan claimed that he had been using the "RUGGLES" trademarks for over forty years and that the defendants misused these trademarks after a forced sale of his restaurants. He alleged that the defendants continued to use the "RUGGLES GREEN" trademark and domain name without authorization, causing consumer confusion.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed all of Molzan's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court found that Molzan's allegations were conclusory and did not establish a connection between the defendants and the third-party websites causing the confusion. The court also determined that the Settlement Agreement between the parties addressed the alleged infringements and provided a remedy for such transgressions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Molzan's complaint contained well-pleaded factual allegations that made his claims facially plausible. The court noted that the allegations established a likelihood of confusion due to the defendants' continued use of the "RUGGLES" trademarks. The court also found that the district court erred in assuming the veracity of the defendants' assertions over Molzan's well-pleaded allegations. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Molzan's federal and state trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and state trademark dilution claims. The court also reversed the dismissal of Molzan's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. Additionally, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of the Web Defendants and the denial of Molzan's motion for leave to amend his complaint. View "Molzan v. Bellagreen Holdings" on Justia Law

Cynthia Roberge, a State of Rhode Island employee, was involved in a car accident with an underinsured motorist while driving her personal vehicle during the course of her employment. She sought uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage under the State's insurance policy issued by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. Travelers denied her claim, stating that she was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage because she was not driving a "covered auto" as defined by the policy.Roberge filed a lawsuit in Providence County Superior Court, asserting claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and bad faith. Travelers removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Travelers, concluding that Roberge was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage under the policy's terms and that neither the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision in Martinelli v. Travelers Insurance Companies nor the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute required such coverage.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the policy's language clearly excluded Roberge from UM/UIM coverage because she was not driving a "covered auto." However, the court found that the case raised unresolved questions of Rhode Island insurance law, particularly regarding the applicability of the Martinelli exception and the requirements of the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute. The First Circuit decided to certify two questions to the Rhode Island Supreme Court: whether an employee must be considered a named insured under an employer's auto insurance policy when operating a personal vehicle in the scope of employment, and whether it violates Rhode Island law and public policy for an employer's policy to provide liability but not UM/UIM coverage to employees in such circumstances. The case was stayed pending the Rhode Island Supreme Court's response. View "Roberge v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America" on Justia Law

Next Millennium Telecom Co. (Nextel), a Saudi Arabian corporation, was contracted by the Saudi Arabian government to install an emergency siren system. Nextel paid American Signal Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation, approximately $11 million for the sirens and related components. After installation, the sirens failed to operate correctly, and American Signal refused to repair or replace the defective parts or refund the payment. Consequently, Nextel sued American Signal in federal court for breach of contract, among other claims.The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The litigation was marked by Nextel's uncooperative behavior, which hindered the discovery process. At the final pretrial conference, the district court noted the lack of progress on key factual issues and ordered Nextel to take specific steps, including obtaining local counsel, conferring with American Signal, and filing a plan for testing the sirens and securing visas for witnesses. Nextel's failure to comply with these orders led the district court to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. The appellate court found that Nextel's conduct, including its failure to facilitate inspections, schedule depositions, adhere to local rules, and comply with the court's pretrial order, justified the dismissal. The court emphasized that the responsibility to move the case forward rested with Nextel, and its pattern of delay and non-compliance supported the district court's decision. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal and did not address Nextel's argument regarding remote testimony for its witnesses. View "Next Millennium Telecom Co. v. American Signal Corporation" on Justia Law

Benchmark Property Remodeling, LLC, a construction company, performed remodeling work on a building owned by Grandmothers, Inc., which was leased to the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR). The work was based on quotes finalized between KDOR and Benchmark, and a "Third Amendment to Lease" between KDOR and Grandmothers. Benchmark completed the work and invoiced Grandmothers and KDOR. KDOR paid Grandmothers, but Grandmothers only partially paid Benchmark, withholding some amounts for various reasons. Benchmark sued Grandmothers, KDOR, and others for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other claims.The Shawnee District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Grandmothers on several claims, concluding there was insufficient evidence of a contract between Benchmark and Grandmothers. The court also granted KDOR's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Benchmark then dismissed its remaining claims without prejudice and appealed the partial summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings.The Kansas Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that appellate jurisdiction was proper because Benchmark did not refile its dismissed claims, making the district court's judgment final. The panel reversed the district court's entry of judgment on the pleadings for KDOR, noting significant factual issues regarding the parties' intent. The panel also reversed the district court's summary judgment for Grandmothers, finding that the evidence could support a finding of a contract between Benchmark and Grandmothers.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the district court's partial summary judgment became final with the dismissal of the remaining claims, thus granting appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the existence of a contract, making summary judgment inappropriate. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Benchmark Property Remodeling v. Grandmothers, Inc." on Justia Law