Balboa Capital Corporation, a financing company, entered into agreements with various physicians across multiple states to finance their participation in a telehealth program run by America’s Medical Home Team (MHT). MHT, however, was operating a Ponzi scheme and failed to deliver the promised services and equipment. Balboa financed the physicians' participation by paying MHT directly and then sought repayment from the physicians through monthly payment agreements (MPAs) or installment payment agreements (IPAs). The physicians, unaware of the full terms and believing they could withdraw without financial obligations, defaulted on their payments after MHT's collapse.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas consolidated multiple collection actions filed by Balboa against the physicians. The court struck an evidentiary exhibit that combined the payment agreements with invoices, ruling that the invoices were not properly authenticated and constituted impermissible hearsay. The court then granted summary judgment in favor of the physicians, finding that the payment agreements alone did not constitute valid contracts as they lacked essential terms such as the total amount financed and the cost of financing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court affirmed the decision to strike the exhibit, agreeing that the invoices were not properly authenticated and did not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court also affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the payment agreements, even if considered together with the invoices, did not form enforceable contracts under California law due to the absence of material terms. Consequently, Balboa’s claims for breach of contract and breach of guarantee failed as a matter of law. View "Balboa Capital v. Okoji Home Visits MHT, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The North Central Montana Regional Water Authority (the Authority) was created in 2000 through an interlocal agreement among several municipalities and county water and sewer districts. The Town of Kevin, a small municipality with fewer than 175 residents, did not sign the original agreement but signed several later documents attempting to join the Authority. The Town later sought to sever ties with the Authority, which resisted these attempts. On May 29, 2020, the Town sued the Authority, seeking a declaratory judgment under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) that it was not, and never had been, a member of the Authority, and also sought attorney fees.The Twelfth Judicial District Court held a bench trial and issued an order on November 10, 2022, declaring that the Town was not a member of the Authority and granting other relief. Subsequently, the Town filed a motion for attorney fees under the UDJA. On March 30, 2023, the District Court found that equitable factors supported awarding attorney fees to the Town, noting the significant disparity in resources between the Town and the Authority. The Authority appealed this order.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the UDJA provides a legal basis for awarding attorney fees between governmental entities when appropriate. The court found that the parties were not similarly situated, as the Town had significantly fewer resources compared to the Authority. The court also applied the "tangible parameters test" and concluded that the Authority possessed what the Town sought, it was necessary for the Town to seek a declaration, and the declaratory relief was necessary to change the status quo. Therefore, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the Town. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of attorney fees to the Town. View "Town of Kevin v. North Central Montana Regional Water Authority" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Bank of America (BOA) accountholder, was charged two separate out-of-network (OON) balance inquiry fees when using a non-BOA ATM. She claimed that only the first fee was permissible under the contract, arguing that a "balance inquiry" should be defined as a customer-initiated request for balance information. BOA contended that it could charge a fee whenever an ATM transmitted a balance inquiry request, regardless of the customer's actions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of BOA on both the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. The court also denied class certification, reasoning that individual issues predominated over common ones, particularly concerning the subjective intent of each class member and variations in ATM prompts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, agreeing with the plaintiff that a "balance inquiry" should be defined as a customer-initiated transaction. The court found that BOA's interpretation, which allowed fees based on ATM transmittals, was unreasonable and not supported by the contract's language. The court affirmed the summary judgment on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, as it was indistinguishable from the breach of contract claim. The court also affirmed the district court's decision that the plaintiff's failure to follow pre-dispute procedures did not bar her claim.The Ninth Circuit vacated the denial of class certification and remanded the case for reconsideration, noting that the court's interpretation of "balance inquiry" alleviated concerns about the need to probe the subjective intent of individual class members. View "Schertzer v. Bank of America, NA" on Justia Law

Josh and Mackie were partners in a marijuana business, Culta, LLC, in Maryland. Josh temporarily relinquished his ownership due to concerns about a past misdemeanor affecting their license application, with an agreement to be reinstated later. However, Mackie prevented Josh from rejoining. Josh sued Mackie and Trellis Holdings Maryland, Inc. (Trellis), Mackie’s company, for breach of contract. The district court found Mackie and Trellis liable and awarded Josh $6.4 million in damages. Mackie and Trellis did not appeal or pay the judgment.Josh sought to enforce the judgment. The district court ordered Mackie and Trellis to sell Trellis’s equity in Culta and turn over the proceeds to Josh, and to avoid devaluing the equity until the sale. Mackie and Trellis appealed, arguing for the first time that enforcing the judgment would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and that the district court lacked authority under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure (C.R.C.P.) 69(g). They also moved the district court to reconsider the original judgment, which was denied, leading to a second appeal. The appeals were consolidated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the original judgment, rejecting Mackie and Trellis’s argument that Josh lacked standing. The court found that Josh had standing as he suffered an injury from the breach of contract, caused by Mackie and Trellis, and the damages awarded were redressable. The court also held that the district court had authority under C.R.C.P. 69(g) to issue the judgment enforcement order, as a charging order was not the exclusive remedy and Mackie and Trellis had sufficient control over Trellis’s equity.However, the Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment enforcement order due to concerns that it might require Mackie and Trellis to violate federal drug laws, and remanded the case for further proceedings to address these public policy concerns. View "Bartch v. Barch" on Justia Law

Eric Bradley and Jacqueline Chuang filed a lawsuit in the Washtenaw Circuit Court against Linda Frye-Chaiken for breach of contract, specific performance, and promissory estoppel. The dispute arose from an agreement to sell a condominium in the Cayman Islands, which Frye-Chaiken later hesitated to complete following her mother's death. Frye-Chaiken claimed the contract was obtained through coercion or fraud and counterclaimed that her diminished capacity due to her mother's illness invalidated the agreement. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Bradley and Chuang, ordering specific performance of the contract and dismissing Frye-Chaiken's counterclaims.The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, supporting the summary disposition and the order for specific performance. Bradley and Chuang then sought sanctions, arguing that Frye-Chaiken's defenses and counterclaims were frivolous. Frye-Chaiken hired Barry Powers to represent her in the sanctions proceedings. The trial court awarded $16,714.27 in attorney fees to Bradley and Chuang, holding Frye-Chaiken, Powers, and her previous attorneys jointly and severally liable for the sanctions.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that under MCR 1.109(E) and MCL 600.2591, sanctions for frivolous filings should only be imposed on the attorney who signed the frivolous documents and the represented party. The court found that Powers did not sign any of the frivolous documents and was only involved in litigating the amount of sanctions. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by holding Powers jointly and severally liable for the sanctions. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Bradley v. Frye-Chaiken" on Justia Law

Fitness International, LLC ("Fitness") entered into a lease agreement with City Center Ventures, LLC ("City Center") for a property in Hopkins, Minnesota, where Fitness operated a health club. Due to executive orders during the COVID-19 pandemic, Fitness was mandated to close its business for approximately 3.5 months in 2020. Fitness sought to recover the rent paid during these closure periods, arguing that the doctrine of frustration of purpose excused its obligation to pay rent during the mandatory closure.The Hennepin County District Court granted summary judgment in favor of City Center, concluding that Fitness's obligation to pay rent was not excused. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that Fitness cited no binding authority allowing the doctrine of frustration of purpose to establish a breach-of-contract claim. The court of appeals also determined that the mandatory COVID-19 closures did not prohibit all permitted uses of the property, thus not substantially frustrating the lease's purpose.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. The court recognized that the Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 265 and 269 provide appropriate frameworks for analyzing claims of permanent and temporary frustration of purpose, respectively. However, the court did not decide whether the doctrine could be used affirmatively for a breach-of-contract claim. Instead, it concluded that even if Fitness could pursue such a claim, the obligation to pay rent was only suspended, not discharged, during the temporary frustration. Since Fitness did not establish that paying rent after the closure would be materially more burdensome, the court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, denying Fitness's claim for rent recovery.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, holding that Fitness's obligation to pay rent was merely suspended during the temporary frustration and not discharged. View "Fitness International, LLC v. City Center Ventures, LLC" on Justia Law

David Hepfl and Jodine Meadowcroft had a complex romantic history, including two marriages and divorces. After their second divorce, they reconciled in 2016 and decided to build a cabin on Meadowcroft's property, which she had retained as nonmarital property. Hepfl paid for the construction and furnishing of the cabin, as well as additional structures like a dock and outhouse. Their relationship ended again in October 2020, and Meadowcroft obtained an Order for Protection (OFP) against Hepfl. Hepfl then filed a civil action alleging unjust enrichment to recover the cabin and its associated fixtures and furnishings or reasonable payment.The district court ruled in favor of Hepfl, concluding that Meadowcroft would be unjustly enriched if she retained the cabin and its associated items without compensating Hepfl. The court found that Hepfl had no intention of gifting the cabin to Meadowcroft and that his contributions were made with the expectation of shared use. Meadowcroft's motion for amended findings was denied, and she was ordered to pay Hepfl for the construction costs and return or compensate for the additional items.The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Meadowcroft's retention of the cabin would result in unjust enrichment. The court noted that Hepfl's contributions were made with the expectation of shared use and that Meadowcroft's actions induced him to make these expenditures.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that Hepfl did not need to show that Meadowcroft engaged in morally wrongful conduct to succeed in his unjust enrichment claim. Instead, it was sufficient that Meadowcroft's retention of the cabin and its associated items would be inequitable under the circumstances. The court emphasized that unjust enrichment claims between former partners in a cohabitating, marriage-like relationship should focus on the equities of the situation rather than the conduct of the parties. View "Hepfl v. Meadowcroft" on Justia Law

RCBA Nutraceuticals, LLC, a Florida-based nutritional supplements company, contracted with Western Packaging, Inc. for the manufacture of plastic zipper pouches to hold its protein powder. These pouches were produced by PolyFirst Packaging, Inc. in Wisconsin, which was later acquired by ProAmpac Holdings, Inc. The pouches were shipped to companies in New York and Texas for filling. RCBA discovered that the pouches were defective, with seams splitting and spilling the protein powder, leading to a lawsuit against ProAmpac in federal court in Wisconsin. RCBA's claims included breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, negligence, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed RCBA’s complaint. The court found that the claims were "foreign" under Wisconsin’s borrowing statute, WIS. STAT. § 893.07, and applied the statutes of limitations from New York and Texas for the contract claims, and Florida for the negligence claim. The court concluded that the contract claims were time-barred under the four-year statutes of limitations of New York and Texas, and the negligence claim was time-barred under Florida’s statute of limitations. The remaining tort claims were precluded by the economic loss doctrine. RCBA’s motion to reconsider was denied, with the court ruling that RCBA had waived its equitable arguments by not raising them earlier.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the final significant event for the contract claims occurred where the defective pouches were delivered, in New York and Texas, making the claims foreign and subject to those states' statutes of limitations. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to deny the motion to reconsider, noting that RCBA had waived its equitable arguments by not presenting them in response to the motion to dismiss. The court concluded that RCBA’s claims were either time-barred or precluded. View "RCBA Nutraceuticals, LLC v. ProAmpac Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Windward Bora LLC purchased a junior promissory note signed by Constance and Royston Browne, secured by a junior mortgage on real property. Windward's predecessor had already obtained a final judgment of foreclosure on the junior mortgage. Without seeking leave from the court that issued the foreclosure, Windward filed a diversity action to recover on the promissory note. Both parties moved for summary judgment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Brownes' motion for summary judgment and denied Windward's. The court found diversity jurisdiction by comparing the national citizenship of the Brownes with that of Windward’s sole member, a U.S. lawful permanent resident, and concluded that state domiciles were irrelevant. It also held that the suit was precluded by New York’s election-of-remedies statute because Windward did not seek leave before suing on the note after its predecessor had already sued on the mortgage. The court found no special circumstances to excuse Windward’s failure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed with the district court that diversity jurisdiction was present but clarified that the state domiciles of the parties were relevant. The court resolved a divide among district courts, stating that there is no diversity jurisdiction in a suit between U.S. citizens and unincorporated associations with lawful permanent resident members if such jurisdiction would not exist in a suit between the same U.S. citizens and those permanent resident members as individuals. The court also affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment for the Brownes under New York’s election-of-remedies statute, finding no special circumstances to excuse Windward’s failure to seek leave. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Bora v. Browne" on Justia Law

Keiland Construction, L.L.C. entered into a construction subcontract with Weeks Marine, Inc. for a project in Louisiana. Weeks terminated the contract for convenience, leading to a dispute over compensation. Keiland submitted pay applications and demobilization costs, which Weeks partially paid. The disagreement centered on whether the contract required lump-sum payments for work completed before termination or if it converted to a cost-plus basis upon termination.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held a bench trial and found the contract ambiguous. It construed the ambiguity against Keiland, the drafter, and ruled in favor of Weeks. The court awarded Keiland damages based on Weeks’s interpretation of the contract but denied Keiland’s claims for direct employee and demobilization costs. The court also awarded Weeks attorneys’ fees and costs, though less than requested, and denied Weeks’s motion for post-offer-of-judgment fees and costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s findings, agreeing that the contract was ambiguous and that the ambiguity should be construed against Keiland. The appellate court upheld the district court’s rulings on damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, including the denial of post-offer-of-judgment fees and costs. The court also affirmed the award of prejudgment interest to Keiland, finding no abuse of discretion.In summary, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects, including the interpretation of the contract, the award of damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. View "Keiland Construction v. Weeks Marine" on Justia Law