Fitness International, LLC was operating an indoor gym and fitness center when it entered into an amended lease with KB Salt Lake III, LLC, that required Fitness International to renovate the premises. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted government orders that closed indoor gyms but allowed commercial construction to continue. Fitness International nevertheless stopped construction at the Chatsworth site, remained in possession of the premises, and stopped paying rent. KB Salt Lake filed an unlawful detainer action, and the trial court granted KB Salt Lake’s motion for summary judgment. Fitness International appealed.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court explained that Fitness International argued that the lease is a “monthly installment contract” and that each month it could not operate the premises as a fitness facility, frustrated the purpose of the contract. The court wrote that neither the pandemic nor the COVID-19 closure orders, however, prevented Fitness International from reopening the gym. Thus, even if California law recognized temporary frustration of purpose, and even if the lease was an “installment contract,” Fitness International still had to make rent payments under the lease. Moreover, the court explained that Fitness International argues the purpose of section 1511 “is to excuse performance under circumstances like these,” but Fitness International cites no authority describing the purpose of section 1511, nor does Fitness International explain how the trial court’s ruling was contrary to any such purpose. View "Fitness International v. KB Salt Lake III" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Cummings Properties, LLC in this suit brought to enforce Darryl Hines's obligations as guarantor of a commercial lease, holding that Hines failed to meet his burden to prove that the amount provided for in the lease's liquidated damages clause was an unreasonable forecast of damages at the time the lease was signed.At issue was whether a liquidated damages clause in the lease was unenforceable where Hines's company defaulted on the rent but Cummings was able to relet the property. The trial judge found in favor of Cummings and awarded it the balance owed under the lease's liquidated damages clause. The appeals court reversed, determining that the liquidated damages provision was an unenforceable penalty because it did not account for the possibility that Cummings could, in mitigation of Hines's breach, relet the premises and collect rent. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court has never required that the amount of a liquidated damages clause take into account any future rents collected from a new tenant to be enforceable; and (2) Hines failed to meet his burden to show that the liquidated damages clause was unenforceable. View "Cummings Properties, LLC v. Hines" on Justia Law

Endeavor Operating Company, LLC (Endeavor) is a “holding company” that owns “various subsidiaries in the entertainment, sports, and fashion business sectors.” Endeavor sued the insurers for (1) declaratory relief and (2) breach of contract related to COVID-19 closures. The insurers demurred to the complaint. The trial court issued a ruling (1) sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and (2) denying Endeavor’s motion for a new trial. The court modified its initial ruling to find that the “actual” or “threatened presence” of COVID-19 or the SARS-CoV-2 virus “does not constitute a physical loss or damage required to trigger coverage for property insurance coverage” but reaffirmed its initial ruling that the contamination/pollution exclusion applied, which in the court’s view obviated its need to address the argument Endeavor raised for the first time in its new trial motion. Endeavor appealed.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court concluded that the insurance policy unambiguously requires “direct physical loss or damage to property” before Endeavor may recover under the business interruption clauses. The court held that Endeavor failed as a matter of law to plead “direct physical loss or damage to property.” The court explained that California courts are in accord that the phrase “direct physical loss or damage to property” means a “‘distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration’” of the insured property. This is the default definition to be applied where a policy does not provide a different definition of “direct physical loss or damage.” The policy here provides no different definition. View "Endeavor Operating Co., LLC v. HDI Global Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded in part the judgment of the circuit court determining that Tom Smith Masonry had a valid mechanic's lien for the unpaid balance due under a construction contract with WIPI Group USA, Inc., holding that the circuit court erred in denying Smith Masonry a judgment of foreclosure on the mechanic's lien for the full amount of the recorded lien.Smith Masonry instituted a mechanic's lien foreclosure action against WIPI seeking to recover unpaid balance due under the parties' construction contract and an award of attorney fees. WIPI counterclaimed for breach of contract. The circuit court ultimately denied both parties relief, determining that Smith Masonry had a valid mechanic's lien for the unpaid contract balance but that WIPI was entitled to an offset because the work did not meet the reasonable standard for construction. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded or the court to enter a judgment of foreclosure in favor of Smith Masonry on its mechanics lien, holding that the circuit court erred in determining that WIPI was entitled to a wholesale offset of the amount due under the contract. View "Smith Masonry v. WIPI Group, USA" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of The Genevieve J. Parmely Revocable Trust asking the court to determine that an option agreement made with Brad Magness was invalid because of the absence of consideration, holding that the circuit court erred.In denying summary judgment for Magness and in granting the Trust's second motion for summary judgment the circuit court determined that the written option agreements at issue were not supported by independent consideration and were null and void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Trust failed to rebut the presumption of consideration established by S.D. Codified Laws 53-6-3. View "Genevieve J. Parmely Revocable Trust v. Magness" on Justia Law

Russell is an orthopedic trauma surgeon who invented numerous products such as bone substitutes and surgical devices. He, along with other inventors were shareholders in CelgenTek, a medical device firm. According to the Inventors, Russell’s creations were game-changers in the field of orthopedics. In 2015, the Inventors entered into an agreement with Zimmer as the exclusive distributor of certain CelgenTek products. CelgenTek was experiencing dire financial problems. Zimmer acquired a 10% ownership of CelgenTek for $2 million and purchased the remaining 90% in 2016. The Inventors retained the right to a small percent of the net yield on the products it developed (earnout products). Zimmer agreed that it would use “Commercially Reasonable Efforts,” as defined in the Agreement, to sell the earnout products. From the date the agreement through 2019, Zimmer paid the Inventors approximately $130,000 in earnout payments. The Inventors sued, alleging that Zimmer failed to use Commercially Reasonable Efforts.The Seventh Circuit affirmed that the Inventors failed to state a claim. Many of Zimmer's 21 complained-of actions and inactions reflect how the Inventors hoped Zimmer would have marketed and sold the earnout products or what the Inventors would have done had they not put Zimmer in charge of sales. Others allege broken promises that Zimmer purportedly made before the signing of the agreement that are not actionable due to the agreement’s integration clause. View "Russell v. Zimmer, Inc." on Justia Law

Jansen was a resident at a skilled nursing facility. Kotalik, with Jansen’s power of attorney for healthcare, signed a “Contract Between Resident and Facility” that provides all civil claims shall be resolved exclusively through mandatory mediation, and, if such mediation does not resolve the dispute, through binding arbitration. The contract waived claims for punitive damages and included a “termination upon death” provision. Jansen suffered several falls, resulting in injuries that contributed to or caused Jansen’s death. Her estate sued, arguing that the defendants had waived their right to mediate and/or arbitrate by participating in litigation for nearly a year, that the arbitration clause was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and that Kotalik, as Jansen’s POA for healthcare, lacked the authority to execute an arbitration clause on Jansen’s behalf.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion. By the express terms of the contract, once the resident died, the contract ceased to exist, including the forum provision. The court did not address the other arguments. View "Clanton v. Oakbrook Healthcare Centre, Ltd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgments of the district court adjudicating a parental interest and accompanying parenting plan regarding Father's minor child in favor of his non-parent ex-wife (Surrogate), holding that the district court erroneously made a child custody parenting plan determination involving a non-parent without the predicate parental interest implied as a condition precedent to imposition of a best interests-based parenting plan.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) correctly concluded that the preclusive terms of a gestational carrier agreement did not preclude Surrogate from later acquiring or establishing a parental interest and right to the extent independently authorized under Montana law; (2) did not err in finding and concluding that Father voluntarily signed the premarital agreement and that it ws thus a validly formed and enforceable contract; (3) did not erroneously reject Father’s assertion that the parent-child relationship provision was unenforceable as equitably unconscionable; and (4) erroneously adjudicated a non parent "parental interest" in favor of Surrogate without the required predicated finding of fact specified by Mont. Code Ann. 40-4-228(2)(a). View "Sayler v. Yan Sun" on Justia Law

Creighton Preparatory School expelled Plaintiff after he made lewd remarks about a teacher. Plaintiff sued Creighton under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 on the theory that the school had discriminated against him by failing to perform an “adequate and impartial investigation.” The district court granted Creighton’s motion to dismiss. It first dismissed the Title IX claim because Plaintiff had failed to “allege [that] his sex played any part in the disciplinary process at all.” Then, with the federal question gone, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff does not allege that Creighton faced external pressure to punish male students, much less gave in by expelling him. The court reasoned that without an allegation of that kind, the complaint fails to plausibly allege the sort of “causal connection between the flawed outcome and gender bias” required to make an erroneous outcome theory work.Further, the court wrote that treating men and women differently can support an inference of sex discrimination, but it requires identifying a similarly situated member of the opposite sex who has been “treated more favorably.” For Plaintiff, he had to find “a female accused of sexual harassment” who received better treatment. There are no female students at Creighton, an all-boys school, let alone any who have faced sexual-misconduct allegations. The court explained that to the extent that Plaintiff argues that believing them over him raises an inference of discrimination, there is nothing alleged that the school did so because of his sex. View "Elijah Wells v. Creighton Preparatory School" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Davis Boat Manufacturing-Nordic, Inc. (Davis Boat), which prevailed in a breach-of-contract action against Defendant applied for an order to sell Defendant’s home. The Stanislaus County Superior Court denied the application on the basis of Code of Civil Procedure section 699.730, a recently added statute that prohibits the forced sale of a judgment debtor’s principal place of residence to satisfy a “consumer debt” except under certain circumstances.   The Fifth Appellate affirmed. The court rejected Davis Boat’s assertions on appeal and held that the definition of “consumer debt” in section 669.730 is not latently ambiguous, and that section 669.730 neither violates the contract nor the equal protection clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. The court explained that section 699.730, subdivision (a) defines “consumer debt” as “debt incurred by an individual primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” Thus, a debt incurred for business or commercial reasons would not be a debt incurred for “personal, family, or household purposes.” The court wrote that notwithstanding the plain meaning of the statute, Davis Boat suggests “consumer debt” is latently ambiguous. The court reasoned that it does not believe that the purpose of Assembly Bill No. 2463 is frustrated simply because the language approved by the Legislature means debt incurred by an individual primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” Moreover, the court wrote that it cannot deem a statutory exemption that allows financial institutions to force the sale of a judgment debtor’s principal place of residence to satisfy a high-priced debt “so devoid of even minimal rationality that it is unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection. View "Davis Boat Manufacturing-Nordic, Inc. v. Smith" on Justia Law