Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The prior owner of the 300-acre STEW Farm in Pickaway County contracted with Watershed Management for construction of waterways and received a subsidy from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA agency, 7 U.S.C. 6962. Kohli, an employee of the Pickaway County Soil and Water Conservation District supervised by NRCS, designed the waterways, and, after certified that they were designed and constructed properly. NRCS also certified the waterways, which allowed the owner to receive the federal reimbursement. The owner failed to pay Watershed, claiming that there was a ridge at the edge of the grass waterways that prevented proper draining. In 2009, Watershed sued for breach of contract; the owner counterclaimed for breach of contract and breach of warranty. A state court granted summary judgment against the owner for failure to prove damages. The new owner then filed a federal suit. The district court dismissed, reasoning, as to NRCS, that STEW Farm had not identified a separate source of federal substantive law and failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity because there are no “clear guidelines” which show that the NRCS actions were not committed to agency discretion. As to Watershed, the court concluded that there was no federal cause of action nor did the state claims implicate significant federal issues. As to PCSWCD, STEW Farm alleged only state-law claims that did not implicate significant federal issues. As to PCSWCD and Kohli, the claims were time barred under Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "Stew Farm, Ltd. v. Natural Res. Conservation Serv." on Justia Law

Monsanto developed a genetic modification in soybean seeds (Roundup Ready® (RR)), known as the 40-3-2 event (RR trait), which enables soybean plants to tolerate application of glyphosate herbicide to kill weeds. Monsanto owns the patent for the RR trait and granted Pioneer a license to produce and sell seeds containing the traits. After Pioneer became a subsidiary of DuPont, Monsanto and Pioneer entered into an amended license, under which DuPont produced and sold RR trait seed. In 2006, DuPont announced that it had developed a glyphosate-tolerant trait, OGAT, expected to confer tolerance to both glyphosate and acetolactate synthase inhibitor herbicide. Testing indicated that OGAT alone did not provide sufficient glyphosate-tolerance for commercial use. DuPont then combined OGAT with the RR trait; the OGAT/RR stack provided increased yields in field trials. DuPont did not sell any OGAT/RR product, however, and discontinued development. Monsanto sued DuPont for breach of the license and patent infringement. The district court granted partial judgment to Monsanto, holding that the license was unambiguous and did not grant the right to stack non-RR technologies with the licensed” trait, but allowed DuPont to amend its answer to assert reformation counterclaims and defenses. The court ultimately told DuPont to “either voluntarily dismiss these reformation claims or produce … all documents … previously withheld.” DuPont continued litigating its reformation counterclaims and produced previously withheld internal e-mails that showed its awareness that it did not have the right to commercialize the OGAT/RR stack. The court found that DuPont’s position was not rooted in fact, that DuPont made misrepresentations and had perpetrated a fraud on the court, struck DuPont’s reformation defense and counterclaims, and awarded limited attorney fees to Monsanto. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Monsanto Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co." on Justia Law

Farm Credit had a security interest in corn delivered to Cargill and filed suit against Cargill in replevin for the corn. The district court concluded that Farm Credit's security interest under the Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 1631(e), entitled it to proceeds from the corn delivered to Cargill. The court concluded that Cargill did not dispute that Farm Credit complied with the FSA. To the extent that the U.C.C. governs priority disputes as a foundation for the FSA, Cargill's argument failed because U.C.C. 9-404 does not apply in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Farm Credit. View "Farm Credit Serv. v. Cargill, Inc." on Justia Law

Greving has lived and farmed in southeastern Wisconsin since 1971. In 2003 he began contracting to sell his grain to Northern Grain, an Illinois-based grain buyer. Northern Grain claimed that Greving repudiated several contracts formed years after the parties first began contracting and sought almost $1 million in damages. When Greving refused to arbitrate, Northern Grain sought an order compelling arbitration. The Illinois district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Greving lacks minimum contacts with Illinois that would permit the district court, consistent with the due process clause, to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over him. Greving only set foot in Illinois once, to attend a seed-corn meeting in 2003, months before the parties entered into the first of their contracts, where he met Wilson, who became his contact with Northern Grain. Even assuming that his attendance at the meeting would enter the “personal-jurisdiction calculus for the later-formed contracts at issue,” there is no indication that Greving attended the meeting in an effort to find grain buyers. Virtually everything else about Greving’s contractual relationship with Northern Grain was based in Wisconsin. View "N. Grain Mktg., LLC v. Greving" on Justia Law

Christine and David Colburn leased property from Robert Hartshorn and agreed to care for Hartshorn's cattle. Neither the terms of the cattle care agreement or the lease agreement were reduced to writing. After a dispute, the Colburns served on Hartshorn an agister's lien for caring for Hartshorn's cattle. The Colburns also brought an action to recover amounts due for their care of Hartshorn's cattle and to foreclose the lien. Ultimately, the Colburns received a court order to sell the calves. The circuit court ruled that the Colburns were entitled to one half the net calf sale proceeds from the sale but found the agister's lien invalid under the terms of the parties' implied contract because the cattle were cared for on Hartshorn's land and not the Colburns' land. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that nothing in the state's laws governing agister's liens defeats their validity when cattle are entrusted to a caretaker on the cattle owner's land. Remanded. View "Colburn v. Hartshorn" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, which owned and operated a ranch, hired Defendant as a custom seeder to seed a barley crop grown under a contract with Circle S Seeds of Montana, Inc. The crop could not be harvested on schedule, and a heavy October snow later destroyed the crop. Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract, alleging that crop did not ripen in time because of improper seed placement. The district court denied and dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, concluding that Defendant did not materially breach its contract with Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding Defendant did not breach the contract by failing to object to rocky field conditions or by failing to achieve uniform depth of seed placement. View "CNJ Distrib. Corp. v. D & F Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1990 Plummer, a recognized expert in horse-breeding and the tax consequences of related investments, created the Mare Lease Program to enable investors to participate in his horse-breeding business and take advantage of tax code provision classification of horse-breeding investments as farming expenses, with a five-year net operating loss carryback period instead of the typical two years, 26 U.S.C. 172(b)(1)(G). Plummer’s investors would lease a mare, which would be paired with a stallion, and investors could sell resulting foals, deducting the amount of the initial investment while realizing the gain from owning a thoroughbred foal. If they kept foals for at least two years, the sale qualified for the long-term capital gains tax rate, 26 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(A). Between 2001 and 2005, the Program generated more than $600 million. Law and accounting firms hired by defendants purportedly vetted the Program. Plummer and other defendants began funneling Program funds into an oil-and-gas lease scheme. It was later discovered that the Program’s assets were substantially overvalued or nonexistent. Investors sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), also alleging fraud and breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment and awarded $49.4 million with prejudgment interest of $15.6 million. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that there was no genuine dispute over any material facts. View "West Hills Farms, LLC v. ClassicStar Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

General Mills sued Five Star for breach of contract and breach of warranties after the meatballs General Mills purchased from Five Star contained beef that was recalled. The district court granted summary judgment to General Mills on the breach-of-contract claim and to Five Star on the breach-of-warranty claims. The parties cross-appealed. The court concluded that the press release that General Mills relied upon to recall the meatballs constituted hearsay. However, the press release set out findings from an investigation pursuant to authority granted by law and was therefore admissible. The court also concluded that sufficient admissible evidence supported the conclusion that the meat was procured in violation of regulations and that it was adulterated. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to General Mills on the breach-of-contract claim. The court further concluded that the district court properly analyzed the breach-of-contract and breach-of-warranties claims separately. The court dismissed General Mills' cross-appeal as moot and affirmed the award of attorneys fees to General Mills. View "General Mills Operations, LLC v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd." on Justia Law

The Scotts Company, an Ohio LLC, brought a diversity action against Seeds, Inc., a Washington corporation, in federal district court. Thereafter, Millhorn Farmers, Maple Leaf Farms, Mica Creek, and Tim Freeburg (Growers) sued Seeds and Scotts in Washington state court. Maple Leaf Farms and Mica Creek were Washington corporations, Millhorn Farms was an Idaho corporation, and Tim Freeburg was a citizen of Idaho. Scotts subsequently filed an amended complaint in federal court adding the Growers as defendants and seeking declaratory relief. The district court subsequently realigned the Growers and plaintiffs and Seeds and Scotts as defendants and held, alternatively, that it would stay the federal proceedings in favor of the related state court proceedings under either the Brillhart doctrine or the Colorado River doctrine. Because the parties' realignment resulted in the absence of complete diversity of citizenship between defendant Seeds and newly-aligned plaintiffs-Growers, the district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court should not have declined to entertain the claim for declaratory relief under the Brillhart doctrine, and instead, the claims should have been evaluated under the Colorado River doctrine. Remanded. View "Scotts Co., LLC v. Seeds, Inc." on Justia Law

This declaratory judgment action concerned a controversy over the limits of an insurance policy issued by Insurer to Insured. A livestock company (Company) brought suit in Minnesota state court against Insured after Company's cattle in Insured's care died in unusually high numbers. Insured submitted the complaint in the underlying action to Insurer. Insurer refused to defend or indemnify Insured in the case brought by Company, basing its denial of coverage on an exclusion in the liability insurance policy for damage to property in the "care, custody, or control" of the insured. The Minnesota district court entered judgment against Insured. Insurer then commenced this action against Company and Insured in federal district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the claims alleged in the underlying action were not covered under Insured's policy with Insurer and that Insurer therefore had no obligation to defend or indemnify Insured. The district court concluded that the claims were covered by the policy and granted Company and Insured's motion for summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because Company's cattle were under Insured's care, custody, and control when they were damaged, the policy did not provide coverage for Company's claimed loss. Remanded.