Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose from the design and installation of cabinetry in a luxury home in Charleston, South Carolina. Design Gaps, Inc., owned by David and Eva Glover, had a longstanding business relationship with Shelter, LLC, a general contractor operated by Ryan and Jenny Butler. After being dissatisfied with Design Gaps’ performance, the homeowners, Dr. Jason and Kacie Highsmith, and Shelter terminated their contract with Design Gaps and hired Distinctive Design & Construction LLC, owned by Bryan and Wendy Reiss, to complete the work. The Highsmiths and Shelter initiated arbitration against Design Gaps, which led to the arbitrator ruling in favor of the homeowners and Shelter on their claims, and against Design Gaps on its counterclaims, including those for copyright infringement, tortious interference, and unfair trade practices.After the arbitration, Design Gaps sought to vacate the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, but the court instead confirmed the award. Concurrently, Design Gaps filed a separate federal lawsuit against several parties, including some who were not part of the arbitration. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that res judicata and collateral estoppel barred the new claims, or alternatively, that the claims failed on other grounds such as the statute of limitations and laches. The district court agreed, dismissing most claims based on preclusion or other legal bars, and granted summary judgment on the remaining claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions. The court held that res judicata and collateral estoppel applied to bar most of Design Gaps’ claims, even against parties not directly involved in the arbitration but in privity with those who were. For the remaining claims, the court found they were properly dismissed on grounds such as the statute of limitations, waiver, or laches. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "Design Gaps, Inc. v. Distinctive Design & Construction LLC" on Justia Law

Two financial advisors entered into two agreements as part of a business transaction: an operating agreement establishing them as members of a wealth management firm and a purchase-and-sale contract under which one advisor would gradually buy out the other's ownership interest. The operating agreement contained a noncompete clause and provisions for mediation and arbitration. After the buyout concluded, the selling advisor remained employed with the company and could only be terminated for cause. In January 2024, he was terminated for cause and immediately began working at a competing firm within the restricted radius specified in the noncompete provision.Following his termination, the company and the buying advisor filed suit in the Circuit Court of Forrest County, alleging breach of contract and seeking, among other relief, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enforce the noncompete clause. The trial court granted the injunction and denied the selling advisor’s motions to dissolve the restraining order, to deny the injunction, and to compel mediation and/or arbitration. The trial court found that the noncompete clause remained binding and that the parties had not shown a clear intent to compel mediation or arbitration for this dispute, given specific contractual language.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the noncompete provision was enforceable, whether the trial court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction, and whether the denial of the motion to compel mediation/arbitration was proper. The Court held that the noncompete provision was binding based on the evidence at the preliminary injunction stage, that the trial court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction, and that the mediation/arbitration provisions were not clearly applicable to this dispute. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s order in all respects. View "Wiggins v. Southern Securities Group, LLC" on Justia Law

A consumer purchased a used vehicle from a dealership, with the transaction documented in two contracts: a purchase order and a retail installment sale contract (RISC). The purchase order included an arbitration provision for disputes arising from the purchase or financing of the vehicle, while the RISC detailed the financing terms but did not include an arbitration clause. The RISC contained an assignment clause by which the dealership assigned its interest in "this contract" (the RISC) to a third-party lender, and defined the agreement between the buyer and the assignee as consisting "only" of the RISC and any addenda. The consumer later filed a class action against the lender, alleging improper fees under Maryland law.The Circuit Court for Baltimore City found for the lender, ruling that the purchase order and RISC should be read together as one contract for the purposes of the transaction, and that the arbitration agreement was enforceable against the consumer. The court granted the lender’s motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, holding that the consumer was bound by the arbitration provision and that the assignee lender could enforce it, even though the consumer did not receive or sign a separate arbitration agreement.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case, focusing on contract interpretation and the scope of the assignment. The court held that, even if the purchase order’s arbitration provision was binding between the consumer and the dealer, it was not within the scope of the assignment to the lender. The RISC’s assignment language made clear that only the RISC and its addenda, not the purchase order or its arbitration clause, were assigned to the lender. As a result, the Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lyles v. Santander Consumer USA" on Justia Law

A 2018 data breach at Barracuda Networks exposed protected health information of patients of Zoll Services LLC, a subsidiary of Zoll Medical Corporation. Zoll had contracted with Fusion LLC for data security services, and Fusion in turn relied on Barracuda’s technology. The agreements between these companies included certain liability and indemnification provisions, as well as a right for Barracuda to audit Fusion’s customer contracts. After the breach, Zoll settled a class action brought by its customers whose data was compromised.Following these events, Zoll initiated arbitration against Fusion and filed suit against Barracuda in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Fusion intervened and asserted additional claims against Barracuda. The district court dismissed most claims but allowed Zoll’s equitable indemnification claim and Fusion’s breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims to proceed. After arbitration and settlements, Axis Insurance Company, as assignee and subrogee of Zoll and Fusion, was substituted as plaintiff. Barracuda moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims, which the district court granted.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment rulings de novo. The appellate court held that Axis failed to present evidence of a relationship between Zoll and Barracuda that would support derivative or vicarious liability necessary for equitable indemnification under Massachusetts law. The court found that Fusion did not meet a condition precedent in its contract with Barracuda, and Barracuda had not waived or was estopped from asserting that condition. Further, Axis could not show that Barracuda breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as no relevant contractual right existed. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Barracuda on all claims. View "Axis Insurance Company v. Barracuda Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

Neil Maune and Marcus Raichle formed a general partnership known as the Maune Raichle Law Firm, which later took out life insurance policies for each partner, naming the partnership as beneficiary. In 2011, Maune, Raichle, and three others established a new law firm, MRHFM, governed by an operating agreement containing an arbitration clause and a delegation provision referencing the American Arbitration Association rules. MRHFM took over premium payments for the life insurance policies, but only Raichle’s policy was amended to name MRHFM as beneficiary. After Maune’s death, the death benefit from his policy was paid to the original partnership, not MRHFM. The Estate of Neil Maune sued Raichle and the partnership, alleging wrongful retention of the insurance proceeds, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.The Circuit Court of St. Louis County denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the partnership was not a party to the operating agreement and thus could not enforce its arbitration provision. The Estate argued that Maune and Raichle signed the agreement only as members and managers of MRHFM, not as partners of the original partnership, and that the claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case de novo and held that, under Missouri’s aggregate theory of partnerships, the partnership has no legal existence separate from its partners. Because Maune and Raichle were the only partners and signed the operating agreement in their individual capacities, they bound themselves and the partnership to the arbitration agreement. The Court further held that, due to the delegation provision, questions about the scope of the arbitration agreement must be decided by the arbitrator. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the circuit court’s order and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration. View "Maune vs. Raichle" on Justia Law

An attorney with over two decades of experience brought suit against an insurance company and its agent after his life insurance policy lapsed due to a missed payment. He claimed to have cured the lapse by paying the overdue premium and submitting required information, and alleged that the insurer confirmed reinstatement before later refunding his payment and rescinding the reinstatement. The insurer denied ever reinstating the policy and asserted it had expired by its own terms. The attorney filed suit in state court, alleging breach of contract and other claims. After removal to federal court, the parties mediated and signed a settlement memorandum outlining five essential terms, including a $10,000 payment to the plaintiff and mutual releases. The memorandum stated that final settlement language would use standard contractual terms.After mediation, the plaintiff refused to sign the draft settlement agreement, objecting to a non-reliance clause he claimed was not discussed during mediation. He also began raising new questions about the status of his insurance policy. He moved to vacate the settlement and sought further discovery, while the defendants moved to enforce the settlement. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri held an evidentiary hearing, which the plaintiff missed, and then granted the defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement and denied the plaintiff’s motions. The plaintiff’s motion for rehearing was also denied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the settlement memorandum contained all essential terms and that the non-reliance clause in the draft agreement was standard language, not a material new term. The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings and no abuse of discretion in denying a new hearing. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment enforcing the settlement. View "Schlecht v. Goldman" on Justia Law

A law firm sought to recover over $1.7 million in fees and costs for representing the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Alex Villanueva, and the Sheriff’s Department in litigation initiated by the County of Los Angeles. Due to a conflict of interest, the County’s Board of Supervisors offered Villanueva independent counsel, allowing him to select his attorney but reserving discretion over compensation. Villanueva chose the law firm, which entered into an engagement agreement with him. The County, however, sent its own retainer agreement to the firm, which the firm refused to sign. The firm continued its representation but was never paid. After the firm demanded arbitration under its engagement agreement, the County and related plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaration that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed and an injunction against the arbitration.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted a preliminary injunction, then summary judgment for the County plaintiffs, finding the Sheriff lacked authority to enter into the engagement agreement. The court denied the law firm’s post-judgment motion for leave to file a cross-complaint, citing both untimeliness and bad faith. The firm then filed a separate lawsuit against the County and related defendants, asserting breach of contract and related claims. The trial court sustained the County’s demurrer, dismissing the complaint with prejudice on grounds that the claims were compulsory cross-claims in the earlier action and for failure to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed both the judgment in the County’s action and the dismissal of the law firm’s separate lawsuit. The court held that the Sheriff did not have authority to retain counsel on his own; only the Board of Supervisors could contract for legal services. The law firm’s claims were barred as compulsory cross-claims and for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act. View "County of Los Angeles v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP" on Justia Law

Ultra Group of Companies and Prince and Prince, LLC entered into a contract regarding the placement and operation of Ultra’s coin-operated amusement machines on Prince’s premises. A dispute arose between the parties, leading to arbitration before a Georgia Lottery Corporation (GLC) hearing officer. On July 30, 2021, the hearing officer issued an “Interim Award” that resolved most substantive contract issues in favor of Prince but left claims for fees and costs unresolved. On September 17, 2021, the hearing officer issued a “Final Award” that incorporated the Interim Award, split arbitration costs, and awarded attorney fees to Ultra. The parties received the Final Award on October 4, 2021.Ultra filed a “Request for Reconsideration and Motion for Review” with the GLC’s chief executive officer (CEO) on October 14, 2021, which was denied by operation of GLC rules after 30 days without a ruling. On December 10, 2021, Ultra filed a timely petition for certiorari to the Superior Court of Fulton County. Prince moved to dismiss, arguing Ultra failed to preserve its appeal rights by not seeking review of the Interim Award within 10 days. The Superior Court of Fulton County agreed and dismissed Ultra’s petition. Ultra appealed to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, which affirmed the dismissal without opinion. Ultra’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and Ultra petitioned the Supreme Court of Georgia for certiorari.The Supreme Court of Georgia held that only the Final Award constituted an appealable order under the GLC’s rules, as it resolved all issues presented in the arbitration. Ultra’s appeal from the Final Award was timely, and the lower courts erred in dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Ultra Group of Companies, Inc. v. Prince and Prince, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including a medical practice, individual physicians, a medical society, and two patients, brought various claims against a health insurer, alleging that the insurer interfered with doctor-patient relationships, denied or delayed coverage for medical services, and caused significant harm to patients. The claims included tortious interference with contractual rights, unfair competition, RICO violations, and emotional distress, with specific factual allegations that the insurer’s actions led to worsened medical outcomes for the patients involved.The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit reviewed the insurer’s motion to compel arbitration based on arbitration clauses in provider agreements and member handbooks. Instead of determining whether the claims were subject to arbitration, the circuit court focused on the alleged unconscionability of the contracts as a whole, finding them to be contracts of adhesion and unconscionable, and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied summary judgment as to one patient’s claims and did not stay the medical society’s claims pending arbitration.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case and held that the circuit court erred by not following the required analytical framework for arbitrability. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s order in part, holding that claims arising under the Participating Physician Agreement must be referred to arbitration because the agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Claims under the Medicare and QUEST Agreements were also subject to arbitration, as the arbitration clauses were not shown to be substantively unconscionable. However, the Court held that the claims of one patient and the physician as a patient were not subject to mandatory arbitration, and another patient’s claims were not subject to a grievance and appeals clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Frederick A. Nitta, M.D., Inc. v. Hawaii Medical Service Association." on Justia Law

The founder and former CEO of a national pizza company brought suit against a public relations firm that had previously provided services to the company. The dispute arose after the plaintiff alleged that the firm leaked confidential and damaging information about him to the press, in violation of a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that included an arbitration clause. The NDA was executed after the company requested the firm sign it, anticipating close work with the plaintiff during a period of reputational crisis. The relationship between the parties deteriorated following a conference call in which the plaintiff made controversial remarks, which were later reported in the media, leading to his resignation from the company’s board.The case was initially filed in state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Over several years, the litigation involved multiple amended complaints, extensive discovery, and dispositive motions. The defendant did not move to compel arbitration until after the district court denied summary judgment on the NDA claim. The district court held a bench trial and found that the NDA was enforceable and contained a binding arbitration provision. However, the court concluded that the defendant had defaulted on its right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case for years before seeking arbitration, and thus denied the motion to compel arbitration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s contract formation ruling but had jurisdiction to review the default determination. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the defendant defaulted on its arbitration rights by seeking a merits resolution in court before moving to compel arbitration. The court dismissed the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction, otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgment, and denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions. View "Schnatter v. 247 Group, LLC" on Justia Law