Plaintiffs purchased furniture from the Fortunoff store and purchased a furniture protection plan. Defendant sold the plans to Fortunoff, which in turn sold them to plaintiffs. After the Fortunoff store closed and the company went into bankruptcy, defendant rejected plaintiffs’ claims under the plan. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging breach of contract, that the store closing termination clause in the plan violated New York General Business Law 395-a, and deceptive business practices in violation of General Business Law 36 349. The district court dismissed, holding that there was no implied cause of action under 395-a. The Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals: May parties seek to have contractual provisions that run contrary to General Business Law 395-a declared void as against public policy? May plaintiffs bring suit pursuant to 349 on the theory that defendants deceived them by including a contractual provision that violates 395-a and later enforcing this agreement?

Petitioner Leandre Layton, on behalf of himself and the similarly-situated members of his conditionally-certified class (collectively, "Drivers"), appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DHL Express, Inc. ("DHL") on his claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). DHL contracted with Sky Land Express, Inc. to manage local parcel deliveries. Petitioner worked on DHL routes for Sky Land. Petitioner filed his collective action for unpaid overtime, naming DHL, Sky Land and Gary Littlefield (owner and president of Sky Land) as his joint employers and defendants to the suit. DHL moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was not the drivers' employer. The district court granted DHL's motion: "DHL did everything it could possibly do to relate to Sky Land only as an "independent contractor[."] The contract with Sky Land allowed DHL to exercise only the minimal supervision necessary to monitor compliance with the contract. The undisputed facts lead to the conclusion that if plaintiffs were employed by anybody, they were employed by Sky Land, the entity that they ostentatiously dismissed as a defendant, for reasons this court can only guess at. DHL was not an employer, much less a joint employer." After a thorough examination of the realities of the economic relationship between Drivers and DHL, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the grounds that DHL was not a joint employer of the Drivers.

Plaintiff brought a Deceptive Trade Practices Act suit against Company and its co-operators for violating the terms of a contract. Through a process server, Plaintiff served all three Defendants with citations, but one citation contained an error in a co-operator's name. Defendants failed to file a timely answer, and Plaintiff obtained a default judgment. Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that service on the co-operator was improper and that Defendants established the necessary Craddock elements to set aside the default judgment. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendants asserted facts that, if true, established the first Craddock element, i.e., that the failure to appear was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was the result of a mistake or an accident. Remanded for consideration of the second and third elements of the Craddock test.

This suit was filed by a daughter against an organ donation charity when she discovered that the charity - contrary to an earlier representation to her - would allegedly profit from harvesting her deceased mother's tissues. The charity requested a defense from its insurer, and the insurer denied a defense. The insurer's subsequent suit against the charity resulted in two certified questions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held (1) the insurance policy provision for coverage of "personal injury" does not include coverage for mental anguish, unrelated to physical damage to or disease of the daughter's body; and (2) the insurance policy provision for coverage of "property damages," does not include coverage for the underlying plaintiff's loss of use of her deceased mother's tissues, organs, bones, and body parts.

Plaintiffs commenced an arbitration proceeding against Defendant pursuant to terms of a written agreement between the parties. Eber subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, and the arbitration was automatically stayed. Plaintiffs then filed a complaint for determination that debts are nondischargeable and for damages. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from automatic stay in the bankruptcy court proceeding and a motion to compel arbitration in the adversary proceeding. Both motions were denied. The bankruptcy court found that Plaintiffs' claims were discharged. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration because granting the motion would have conflicted with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code; and (2) the Court did not need address the denial of Plaintiffs' motion for relief from the automatic stay because the stay had already dissolved before the bankruptcy judge ruled on the motion.

The Regional School District (Mahar), entered into a price watch agreement with Northeast Energy Partners, a licensed broker of energy services based in Connecticut, pursuant to which Northeast would negotiate and secure contracts for the provision of Mahar's electricity from energy suppliers. Mahar did not enter into the agreement to obtain Northeast's services pursuant to the competitive bidding procedures contained in G.L. c. 30B. When Mahar questioned the validity of the agreement, Northeast sought a declaratory judgment that the agreement is valid and enforceable because, under G.L. c. 30B, 1 (b ) (33), the agreement is exempt from the competitive solicitation and bidding procedures set forth in G.L. c. 30B. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of Northeast, holding that a contract between a school district and an energy broker for procurement of contracts for electricity is exempt from the requirements of G.L. [c.] 30B as a contract for 'energy or energy related services' pursuant to G.L. c. 30B, 1 (b ) (33).

Losing money on every box fan it sold, Lakewood authorized CAM to practice Lakewood’s patents and put its trademarks on completed fans. Lakewood was to take orders; CAM would ship to customers. CAM was reluctant to gear up for production of about 1.2 million fans that Lakewood estimated it would require during the 2009 season. Lakewood provided assurance by authorizing CAM to sell the 2009 fans for its own account if Lakewood did not purchase them. Months later, Lakewood’s creditors filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against it. The court-appointed trustee sold Lakewood’s business. Jarden bought the assets, including patents and trademarks. Jarden did not want Lakewood-branded fans CAM had in inventory, nor did it want CAM to sell them in competition with Jarden’s products. Lakewood’s trustee rejected the executory portion of the CAM contract, 11 U.S.C. 365(a). CAM continued to make and sell Lakewood fans. The bankruptcy judge found the contract ambiguous, relied on extrinsic evidence, and concluded that CAM was entitled to make as many fans as Lakewood estimated for the 2009 season and sell them bearing Lakewood’s marks. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that CAM had to stop making and selling fans once Lakewood stopped having requirements.

At issue in this case was (1) whether a life insurance agent owes a duty of care to the intended beneficiary of a life insurance policy, and (2) whether a life insurance agent can be liable for negligent misrepresentation when he provides information to the insured and the intended beneficiary regarding the beneficiary designation listed on the life insurance policy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the agent. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a life insurance agent owes a duty of care to an intended beneficiary of a life insurance policy; (2) a life insurance agent can be liable for negligent misrepresentation; and (3) genuine issues of material fact existed in this case, and therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted. Remanded.

Defendant Brown University appealed a Superior Court judgment in favor of Plaintiff Beverly Haviland in her action for declaratory relief. The issue arose over placement of Haviland in a tenured teaching position as a condition to the employment contract her husband, another tenured professor would receive. The husband would not accept a position with Brown unless the university made room for his plaintiff. Through a series of letters ad negotiations, plaintiff accepted Brown's offer of employment. When her contract was due for renewal, issues arose over promises made in those letters and negotiations that became the subject of this dispute. Brown contended that there was no justiciable issue in this case because plaintiff could not demonstrate an injury in fact, as she did not face any actual or imminent loss of employment. Brown also asserted that the trial justice erred in determining the existence of an implied-in-fact contract between the plaintiff and Brown because insufficient evidence was presented to establish an enforceable promise of de facto tenure. Further, Brown contended that no tenure-like standard of review applied to plaintiff because only the Brown Corporation was vested with the authority to grant tenure and none of the University administrators who communicated with plaintiff were vested with actual or apparent authority to provide the plaintiff with de facto tenure. Upon review, the Supreme Court rejected Brown's arguments and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment in this case.

Plaintiff sought damages resulting from a delayed delivery of perishable food items from Puerto Limón, Costa Rica to San Juan, Puerto Rico. The district court dismissed as time-barred by the statute of limitations in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. 30701. The First Circuit affirmed,rejecting and argument that the parties meant to incorporate COGSA solely for the purpose of limiting the carrier's liability to $500, per COGSA's limitation of liability provision and equitable arguments.