The case involves a contract dispute between Kenneth E. Salamone and RUFSTR Racing, LLC (Plaintiffs) and Douglas Marine Corporation (Defendant). Plaintiffs contracted with Douglas Marine to purchase a custom-made race boat and trailer for $542,117, making payments totaling $501,500. Douglas Marine failed to deliver the boat on time, leading Plaintiffs to cancel the contract. Douglas Marine sold the boat and engines for $375,000 but only remitted $50,000 to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, seeking damages.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York held a jury trial, which found in favor of Plaintiffs, awarding them $131,171 in damages. Plaintiffs moved to alter the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), arguing the jury's calculation was fundamentally erroneous and should be increased to $451,500. The district court agreed, ruling that the jury's verdict constituted a fundamental error and increased the damages to $451,500. Douglas Marine appealed, arguing the district court erred in increasing the damages and in not instructing the jury on a mitigation-of-damages defense. They also challenged the court's personal jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It found merit in Douglas Marine's argument that the district court improperly increased the damages award, ruling that the jury's verdict did not constitute fundamental error. The appellate court reversed the amended judgment to the extent it increased the damages and remanded the case for entry of a second amended judgment consistent with the jury's original award of $131,171. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Douglas Marine's post-judgment motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Salamone v. Douglas Marine Corp." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Commodities & Minerals Enterprise, Ltd. (CME) and CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A. (FMO). CME sought to confirm a New York Convention arbitration award of $187.9 million against FMO. FMO opposed the confirmation, alleging that CME procured the underlying contract through fraud, bribery, and corruption, arguing that enforcing the award would violate U.S. public policy. The district court confirmed the award, ruling that FMO was barred from challenging the confirmation on public policy grounds because it failed to seek vacatur within the three-month time limit prescribed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially reviewed the case. CME moved to confirm the arbitration award in December 2019. FMO opposed the confirmation nearly two years later, citing public policy concerns. The district court granted CME’s motion, explaining that FMO was barred from opposing confirmation on public policy grounds due to its failure to seek vacatur within the FAA’s three-month time limit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, based on its recent en banc decision in Corporación AIC, SA v. Hidroélectrica Santa Rita S.A., FMO should have been allowed to assert its public policy defense in opposition to confirmation. The court clarified that the grounds for vacating a New York Convention arbitration award are those set forth in U.S. domestic law, specifically Chapter 1 of the FAA, which does not recognize public policy as a ground for vacatur. However, the court affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the award, concluding that FMO’s public policy defense failed on the merits because it attacked the underlying contract, not the award itself. View "Commodities & Minerals Enterprise, Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco C.A." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the allocation of attorneys' fees from a $1.51 billion settlement between Syngenta AG and numerous plaintiffs. The settlement arose after Syngenta failed to obtain regulatory approval for its genetically modified corn seeds to be imported into China, leading to significant financial losses for American corn farmers and producers. As part of the settlement, $503 million was allocated for attorneys' fees, which was divided into four pools: three common benefit pools and one for individually retained private attorneys (IRPAs). The IRPA pool was allocated $60 million.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas initially approved the allocation scheme and the modification of contingent-fee contracts, capping IRPA fees at approximately 10% of their clients' recovery. The Objecting Firms, including Hossley-Embry and Byrd/Shields, challenged this allocation and the modification of their fee contracts. They filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that the settlement claims process was more complex than anticipated, requiring additional work. The district court denied these motions, and the Objecting Firms appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously affirmed the district court's allocation scheme and the modification of the contingent-fee contracts in In re Syngenta I. The current appeal focuses on the district court's June 2021 IRPA Pool Allocation Order, which adopted the special master's recommendations on the allocation of the $60 million within the IRPA pool. The Objecting Firms argued that the district court's allocation was insufficient and that their due process rights were violated.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's June 2021 IRPA Pool Allocation Order, concluding that the Objecting Firms failed to raise any arguments within the scope of the appeal, which was limited to the allocation of the IRPA pool itself. The court also dismissed the contingent cross-appeal by MDL Co-Lead Counsel as moot, given the affirmation of the district court's order. View "In re: SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION" on Justia Law

3M Company operates a manufacturing facility in Cordova, Illinois, producing chemical products containing PFAS. The State of Illinois sued 3M, alleging that PFAS from the Cordova Facility contaminated the Mississippi River, violating state environmental laws. The State's complaint specifically excluded PFAS contamination from any other source, including AFFF used by the U.S. military at the nearby Rock Island Arsenal.The case was initially filed in Illinois state court. 3M removed it to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, citing the federal officer removal statute, arguing that some contamination might have come from AFFF provided to the military, thus invoking a federal government contractor defense. The State moved to remand the case back to state court. The district court granted the motion, finding that the State's complaint excluded AFFF-related contamination, focusing solely on PFAS from the Cordova Facility.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that 3M could not satisfy the fourth element required for removal under the federal officer removal statute, which necessitates a colorable federal defense. The court noted that the State had unequivocally conceded that it would not seek relief for mixed PFAS contamination and that any recovery would be barred if contamination was not solely from the Cordova Facility. Consequently, 3M's government contractor defense was deemed irrelevant under the State's theory of recovery. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to remand the case to state court. View "Raoul v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

Jonathan Michel, a sophomore at Yale University during the Spring 2020 semester, filed a putative class action against Yale after the university transitioned to online-only classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Michel sought tuition refunds, claiming promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment under Connecticut law, arguing that Yale's refusal to refund tuition was inequitable since the online education provided was of lower value than the in-person education promised.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Yale's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Michel did not present evidence of financial detriment caused by the transition to online classes, a necessary element for both promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims. The court dismissed Michel's suit on January 31, 2023.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that Michel's quasi-contract claims were barred by a "Temporary Suspension Provision" in Yale's Undergraduate Regulations. This provision, which acted as a force majeure clause, allowed Yale to transition to online-only classes during the pandemic without issuing tuition refunds. The court concluded that Michel and Yale had a contractual relationship governed by this provision, which precluded Michel's quasi-contract claims. Therefore, Yale was entitled to summary judgment. View "Michel v. Yale University" on Justia Law

Anthony Cordero, a student at Montana State University (MSU) during the Spring 2020 semester, sued MSU for prorated reimbursement of his tuition and fees after the university transitioned to online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cordero claimed that MSU breached an express contract to provide in-person education and services. He also asserted claims for breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, due process violation, violation of the takings clause, and inverse condemnation.The First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County dismissed four of Cordero’s six claims, including the implied contract and unjust enrichment claims, under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court granted summary judgment in favor of MSU on the remaining claims, including the express contract claim, and denied Cordero’s motion to certify the case as a class action. The court found that Cordero did not identify a specific, bargained-for promise by MSU to provide in-person education and that he had no compensable property interest in the tuition and fees paid.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that there was an express contract between Cordero and MSU, but it did not include a specific promise to provide in-person education. The court found that MSU had the right to change its regulations and policies, including transitioning to online learning during emergencies. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the implied contract and unjust enrichment claims, noting that an implied contract cannot exist when an express contract is present. The court concluded that MSU did not breach its contractual duties regarding tuition and fees, as it maintained campus facilities and services to the extent possible during the pandemic. View "Cordero v. Montana State University" on Justia Law

AXIS Insurance Company sought indemnification from American Specialty Insurance & Risk Services for claims AXIS settled, based on a contract between the two parties. The contract did not require AXIS to offer American Specialty the choice to approve the settlement or assume the defense. However, American Specialty argued that Indiana law imposed such an obligation. The district court agreed with American Specialty and granted summary judgment in its favor.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana found that AXIS's settlement payment was voluntary because AXIS did not give American Specialty the opportunity to approve the settlement or assume the defense. The court concluded that AXIS had to show actual liability on the underlying claim to seek indemnification, which AXIS could not do. Therefore, the district court ruled that American Specialty had no duty to indemnify AXIS for the settlement payment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the contract did not require AXIS to tender the defense to American Specialty before settling claims. The court also found that Indiana law does not imply such a requirement in indemnification agreements. The Seventh Circuit concluded that AXIS was not obliged to offer American Specialty the opportunity to approve the settlement or assume the defense as a condition precedent to indemnification. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Axis Insurance Company v. American Specialty Insurance & Risk Services" on Justia Law

A group of drivers sued their employer, Owl, Inc., for breach of contract and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They claimed they were not paid the correct hourly rate under their employment contract or overtime wages under the FLSA. The district court granted summary judgment for Owl on the breach of contract claim and limited the damages available to the drivers for the FLSA claim. The parties then settled the FLSA claim for $350,000, and the drivers appealed the district court’s rulings.The district court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, reasoning that the drivers had agreed to a specific hourly rate, and enforcing a higher rate under the Service Contract Act (SCA) would create a private right of action under the SCA, which does not exist. The court also granted Owl’s motion in limine, limiting the FLSA damages to one-and-a-half times the rate the drivers were actually paid. The drivers settled the FLSA claim but reserved the right to appeal the district court’s rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the district court entered a final judgment on all claims. The court also held that the drivers had standing to challenge the district court’s rulings despite the settlement. On the merits, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, holding that the SCA wage was not incorporated into the employment contracts. However, it reversed the district court’s ruling on the FLSA claim, holding that the “regular rate” under the FLSA should include the prevailing wage required by the SCA. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Perez v. Owl, Inc." on Justia Law

An affiliate of Cambrian Holding Company held a lease to mine coal on land owned by Hazard Coal Corporation. During Cambrian's bankruptcy, it proposed selling its lease interest to American Resources Corporation, which falsely warranted it could obtain a mining permit. The bankruptcy court approved the lease assignment based on this false understanding. Hazard Coal later discovered American Resources could not lawfully mine coal and repeatedly tried to unwind the assignment, but the bankruptcy court rejected these attempts.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky initially approved the sale of Cambrian's lease interest to American Resources. Hazard Coal did not object before the sale but later moved to reconsider the sale order, citing American Resources' permit-blocked status. The bankruptcy court denied this motion, stating Hazard Coal could have raised its objections earlier. Hazard Coal did not appeal this decision. Subsequently, Hazard Coal moved to compel American Resources to restore power to the mine or rescind the assignment, but the court again denied the motion, reiterating that Hazard Coal had forfeited its objections by not acting timely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Hazard Coal appealed the bankruptcy court's declaration that Cambrian had validly assigned the lease to American Resources. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court held that the bankruptcy court reasonably interpreted its prior orders as barring Hazard Coal's challenge to the lease assignment due to its failure to timely assert its rights. The court emphasized that Hazard Coal's objections were forfeited because they were not raised in a timely manner. View "In re Cambrian Holding Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Henry Searcy, Jr. sought certification as an agent under the NFLPA’s 2012 Regulations Governing Contract Advisors but failed the required exam twice. After an arbitrator sided with the NFLPA, Searcy sued the NFLPA, its Executive Director, Prometric LLC, and Prometric’s Vice President and General Counsel. He alleged breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and sought vacatur of the arbitration award under the FAA.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims against Prometric Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and against the NFLPA Defendants for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims against Prometric Defendants and instructed the District Court to reconsider its dismissal of claims against the NFLPA Defendants, specifically examining whether Section 301 of the LMRA preempted Searcy’s state law claims.Upon further review, the District Court concluded it had jurisdiction and dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Searcy appealed again. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the District Court erred in finding subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against the NFLPA Defendants. The court determined that Section 301 of the LMRA does not completely preempt Searcy’s state law claims, as these claims do not require interpretation of the NFL-NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal on different grounds and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). View "Searcy v. Smith" on Justia Law