In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to dismiss the lawsuit of Iowa-based livestock feed seller Hawkeye Gold, LLC against China National Materials Industry Import and Export Corporation, also known as Sinoma, for lack of personal jurisdiction. Hawkeye Gold sued Sinoma to recover an unpaid default judgment it obtained against Sinoma's now-defunct wholly owned United States subsidiary, Non-Metals, Inc., for breach of a contract to purchase livestock feed. After six years of litigation, the District Court dismissed the case because it did not have personal jurisdiction over Sinoma, a decision which Hawkeye Gold appealed. The Appeals Court, after reviewing the evidence, agreed with the District Court's conclusion that Sinoma had insufficient minimum contacts with Iowa to support personal jurisdiction. The Court also rejected Hawkeye Gold's argument that Sinoma was a party to the contract or that Non-Metals was the alter-ego of Sinoma. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the District Court's denial of Hawkeye Gold's request for sanctions against Sinoma for alleged discovery violations. View "Hawkeye Gold, LLC v. China National Materials" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, several clients of Wyndham Vacation Resorts (Resorts) sought to arbitrate disputes with Resorts, but their petitions were rejected by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) because Resorts had failed to comply with AAA’s policies. The clients then sued Resorts in federal court. Resorts moved to stay the litigation and direct arbitration, but the district court denied the motion, reasoning that Resorts cannot rely on the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to compel arbitration because it had defaulted in its obligation to arbitrate by failing to comply with AAA's policies.The appellate court held as follows: First, the three clients who originally sought to arbitrate their claims against Resorts, only to see their petitions rejected due to Resorts’ noncompliance with AAA policies, may proceed to litigation. Second, three other clients who never formally submitted their claims against Resorts to the AAA, but whose agreements with Resorts contained identical arbitration provisions, may also proceed to litigation. However, two clients who had an agreement with different Wyndham-related entities must return to the district court for further consideration of the FAA’s applicability to their dispute.The court found that the district court correctly concluded that Resorts could not compel arbitration under the FAA. However, the court found that the district court's decision was too broad regarding the other Wyndham-related entities, Development and WorldMark, because there was no evidence that they had violated the AAA’s policies. As a result, the court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings concerning these entities. View "Bedgood v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered an appeal by Colony Insurance Company against First Mercury Insurance Company related to a settlement agreement for an underlying negligence case. Both companies had consecutively insured DL Phillips Construction, Inc. (DL Phillips) under commercial general liability insurance policies. After the settlement, Colony sued First Mercury, arguing that First Mercury needed to reimburse Colony for the full amount of its settlement contribution, as it contended that First Mercury's policies covered all damages at issue. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of First Mercury, prompting Colony's appeal.In the underlying negligence case, DL Phillips was hired to replace the roof of an outpatient clinic in Texas. Shortly after completion, the roof began leaking, causing damage over several months. The clinic's owner sued DL Phillips for various claims, including breach of contract and negligence. A verdict was entered against DL Phillips for over $3.7 million. Both Colony and First Mercury contributed to a settlement agreement, and then Colony sued First Mercury, arguing it was responsible for all the property damage at issue.The appellate court held that under the plain language of First Mercury's policies and relevant case law, First Mercury was only liable for damages that occurred during its policy period, not all damages resulting from the initial roof defect. The court also found that Colony failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact about whether there was an unfair allocation of damages, which would be necessary for Colony's contribution and subrogation claims. As such, the court affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of First Mercury and denied summary judgment for Colony. View "Colony Insurance Company v. First Mercury Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed a district court's judgment, which had dismissed the claims of Jacob Ebel, John Ebel, and Ordeen Ebel (collectively, "the Ebels") for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, breach of contract, and tortious interference. The Ebels had sought enforcement of contracts they claimed were formed when their bids for parcels of real property owned by the estate of Mark Engelhardt were accepted. The district court had dismissed the Ebels' claims, asserting that the parties did not satisfy the statute of frauds, which requires contracts for the sale of real property to be in writing. The Supreme Court found that the district court misapplied the law because the statute of frauds was not specifically pled or otherwise raised by the parties. The Supreme Court noted that under Rule 8 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, the statute of frauds must be specifically pled as an affirmative defense. Therefore, the case was reversed on the ground that the district court incorrectly applied the statute of frauds when the defense was not properly raised. View "Ebel v. Engelhart" on Justia Law

In February 2020, Shift Services, LLC (Shift) was contracted by Ames Savage Water Solutions, LLC (Ames) to repair a liner inside a water tank operated by Ames. The agreement was for a fixed price of $39,500.00, which included all labor, material, and travel time. When Shift began the work, they found a more significant amount of ice in the tank than initially observed. Shift communicated with Ames about the issue and decided to subcontract a hot oil truck company to melt the ice. Upon completion of the project, Ames paid the contracted amount but refused to pay an additional $31,705.00 bill from Shift related to the ice removal. Shift claimed that the contract was modified to include these additional costs, which Ames had allegedly approved. The district court dismissed Shift's breach of contract claim and terminated the construction lien it had placed on the property, finding that there was a lack of mutual assent to modify the contract.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Shift did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate mutual assent for the modification of the original contract. The court pointed out that Shift had not disclosed to Ames that they intended to add an additional charge for the increased cost associated with the ice removal, nor did they discuss the details of the subcontractor, the equipment to be used, or the estimated number of hours that the removal would take. In conclusion, the court found no error in the district court's finding of a lack of mutual assent to modify the contract, thereby confirming that Ames did not breach the contract. View "Shift Services v. Ames Savage Water Solutions" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Fonda Jo Powell and Mary T. Henke, as co-personal representatives of the Estate of June A. Slagle, alongside Helen Verhasselt, the trustee of the June Slagle Family Mineral Trust, filed an appeal against Statoil Oil & Gas LP (now known as Equinor Energy LP). The plaintiffs appealed from a judgment of dismissal entered after the district court granted Statoil's motion for summary judgment, concluding that a dispute of title allowed Statoil to suspend royalty payments and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to statutory interest. The plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in concluding there was a title dispute, while Statoil argued that this action was barred by the statute of limitations.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the decision of the district court, concluding that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations and that the court erred in concluding that Statoil lawfully suspended royalty payments. The court determined that a ten-year statute of limitations applied to the claim for untimely payment of royalties under the oil and gas lease, as per N.D.C.C. § 28-01-15(2). Furthermore, the court concluded that, when a dispute is between the mineral developer and the mineral owner, notice of the dispute is required under N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.4. As Statoil did not provide evidence that it had notified June Slagle of a title dispute, it was required to pay interest on the unpaid royalties at a rate of 18% per annum. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Powell v. Statoil Oil & Gas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Carolina was required to decide whether a trial court can refuse to hear oral testimony during a summary judgment hearing on the mistaken belief that the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit the receipt of such testimony. The plaintiff, a corporation, had sued the defendants for breach of a commercial lease, and the defendants counterclaimed for fraud. During the summary judgment hearing, the trial court declined a request by the defendants to introduce live testimony, asserting that it was not permitted during a summary judgment hearing. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's summary judgment order and remanded the case, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that a trial court errs if it fails to exercise its discretion under the misapprehension that it has no such discretion, referring to Rule 43(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure that allows for the introduction of live oral testimony during a summary judgment hearing at the discretion of the trial court. The court found that the trial court was mistaken in its belief that it could not allow oral testimony, and this error warranted vacatur and remand for reconsideration. The Supreme Court thereby modified and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to vacate the trial court's summary judgment order and remand the case. View "D.V. Shah Corp. v. VroomBrands, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Plaintiff Kevin Brown, a former employee of Court Square Capital Management, L.P., sued the company for withholding his carried interest payments, alleging breach of contract. Court Square Capital Management counterclaimed, alleging that Brown had violated non-compete and confidentiality provisions in the company's LLC agreements. The issues in question were whether Brown's conduct in relation to two investment opportunities, Zodiac and Hayward, violated the non-compete provisions, and whether his conduct concerning certain internal memos breached the confidentiality provisions.The court found that Brown did not violate the non-compete provisions. Although the companies in question could be considered as "investment opportunities" as per the LLC agreement, Brown did not acquire any interest in these companies during the prohibited period, and his salary from his new employer, MSD, did not constitute an acquired interest.The court also found that Brown did not breach the confidentiality provisions. Court Square argued that Brown breached these provisions by requesting and receiving internal memos (HUMs) from his former colleague at Court Square. The court, however, found that the information in the HUMs was not confidential as it was widely circulated among private-equity firms and would have been easily accessible to anyone in Brown's position. Furthermore, Brown used these memos solely for formatting purposes and did not use the information for competitive purposes.The court therefore entered judgment in favor of Brown. View "Brown v. Court Square Capital Management, L.P." on Justia Law

The case involves an Iowa attorney, Marc Harding, who hired an Indiana-based doctor, Rick Sasso, to provide expert witness services in a potential medical malpractice suit in Iowa. After things did not go as planned, Harding sued Sasso in Iowa to recover a portion of the $10,000 retainer he had paid, plus additional damages. Sasso moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the Iowa court did not have personal jurisdiction over him. The district court denied the motion, and Sasso appealed. The court of appeals reversed the district court's decision and ordered the case to be dismissed, but the Supreme Court of Iowa granted Harding's application for further review.The Supreme Court of Iowa held that the Iowa court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Sasso. The court found that Sasso had sufficient minimum contacts with Iowa to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him with respect to the contract dispute. Sasso had entered into a contractual relationship with Harding, who is an Iowa lawyer, and agreed to evaluate a medical malpractice claim involving Iowa residents and to provide expert testimony at any trial in the medical malpractice case, which would have been venued in Iowa. The court also found that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be unreasonable or offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Iowa vacated the decision of the court of appeals, affirmed the district court's order denying Sasso's motion to dismiss, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Harding v. Sasso" on Justia Law

In a dispute before the Supreme Court of Mississippi, Amrut Patel claimed that Dilip Bhana failed to repay three loans. The Chancery Court of DeSoto County had granted a judgment in favor of Patel in 2014. In 2021, Patel attempted to renew the judgment by filing a notice of renewal with the DeSoto County Circuit Court. In 2022, Patel pursued executing the judgment in the DeSoto County Chancery Court. However, Bhana filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the judgment had expired because Patel did not properly renew it. The chancery court denied Bhana’s motion to dismiss.Bhana's case was brought before the Supreme Court of Mississippi on interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court clarified that there are three ways to renew a judgment in Mississippi: filing a notice of renewal with the clerk of the court that rendered the judgment, filing a motion to renew in the court that rendered the judgment, or filing a new suit on the judgment in any court in which venue is proper. The court found that Patel did not follow any of these methods properly. Patel had filed a notice of renewal in the circuit court, not the chancery court that had issued the judgment, and he had not filed a new suit to renew the judgment.The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that Patel's judgment against Bhana had expired because Patel had not renewed it in any manner provided by law or case precedent. The court also ruled that Bhana did not waive his statute of limitations defense and that the chancery court had abused its discretion by finding Bhana’s motion to dismiss untimely. Consequently, the court reversed the chancery court’s denial of Bhana’s motion to dismiss and rendered judgment in favor of Bhana. View "Dilip v. Patel" on Justia Law