Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Appellant, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, sued appellee, a Spanish corporation with its principal place of business in Barcelona, Spain, for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. At issue was whether the district court properly granted appellee's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, declined to reach the forum-non-conveniens argument, and denied the motion for failure to state a claim. The court held that the proper application of the five-factor test set forth in Johnson v. Arden supported hearing the present case in Missouri. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings. As a preliminary matter, the court held that it would address the forum-non-conveniens argument because no additional facts were needed to resolve the issue. The court held, however, that because the plaintiff's choice of forum was entitled to significant deference and because the public-interest factors favor deciding the case in Missouri, the court did not find that the present case presented the exceptional circumstances necessary to invoke the doctrine of forum-non-conveniens. Therefore, the court denied appellee's motion to dismiss based on this ground. The court further held that in denying appellee's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the district court did so without analysis and without prejudice. Therefore, the issue should be left for the district court to consider on remand.

In 2007, Massachusetts Defendant No. 1 Steel Products, Inc. (No. 1 Steel) was a subcontractor on a construction project at a health rehabilitation center in Massachusetts (Cape Regency project). While working on the project, No. 1 Steel determined that it needed to hire out some of the steel fabrication for which it was responsible. No. 1 Steel found Alabama Plaintiff Garrison Steel Fabricators, Inc. (Garrison). No. 1 Steel was dissatisfied with Garrison's work and refused to pay Garrison anything beyond what it had previously paid. In an attempt to collect the remaining amount owed, Garrison sent No. 1 Steel notice that it intended to file mechanic's liens on the project unless it was paid. Upon receiving the notice, No. 1 Steel filed a motion in Massachusetts court to discharge and release the not-yet-filed-lien, arguing that Garrison was not registered to do business in Massachusetts and that no written contract of the parties' agreement existed. The Massachusetts court granted the motion without stating a rationale. In 2009 Garrison sued No. 1 Steel in Alabama court, asserting claims of open account, implied contract and labor and work performed. No. 1 Steel moved to dismiss, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court found the "specific contacts" No. 1 Steel had were not sufficient enough that it should have anticipated being haled into court in Alabama; No. 1 Steel's relationship with Garrison was limited to a one-time purchase of customized goods. The Court directed the trial court to dismiss Garrison's case because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over No. 1 Steel.

Petitioner Glenda Barron began working for Respondent Labor Finders of South Carolina in Respondent's Charleston office around 1990.  During petitioner's employment, Respondent planned to open a second office location in the Charleston area and informed Petitioner she would be promoted to regional sales manager for both Charleston locations.  In 2004, petitioner signed an agreement acknowledging her status as an at-will employee and setting her compensation as "straight commission" of 3% of customer payments deposited and posted by both Charleston offices each week, to be paid within ninety days of the invoice date. The second Charleston office opened in September 2004 and began earning income that November.  In January of the following year, Petitioner became concerned that respondent had not paid her the full amount of commissions she had earned. The supervisor contacted respondent's owner, who acknowledged that, due to an oversight, he forgot to pay Petitioner the commissions from the new Charleston location.  Petitioner never filed a written complaint with the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, as outlined by the Payment of Wages Act (Act). Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment the next day, stating it was forced to downsize in light of recent budget cuts.  Eight or nine days later, Respondent issued Petitioner a check in excess of the amount she was owed for commissions. Petitioner sued, alleging violations of the Act, breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.  The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent as to all causes of action. Petitioner appealed the entry of summary judgment as to her wrongful termination claim.  The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner argued on appeal that the Court of Appeals erred in holding she could not maintain a wrongful termination claim under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.  While the Supreme Court agreed the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis, the Court nonetheless affirmed the decision: "[a]lthough we agree. . . that there is no statutory remedy within the Act that would preclude an employee from maintaining a wrongful termination action, we nevertheless decline to address whether the public policy exception applies when an employee is terminated in retaliation for filing a wage complaint with the Department of Labor.  We find the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment because there is simply no evidence the Act was ever implicated."  Petitioner never filed a complaint with the Department of Labor as required by the Act, nor did she ever indicate to respondent she had filed or intended to file a complaint.  "Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner, there is no genuine issue of material fact whether petitioner was terminated in retaliation for availing herself of the protections of the Act."

Defendant Applejack Art Partners, Inc., appealed a trial court enforcing an arbitration award and entered judgment in Plaintiff Albert Stephens, III's favor for $1,538,164.50 plus interest. Plaintiff began working with the company in September 2006 and subsequently invested $1,125,000 in the company in exchange for stock shares.  In April 2008, Applejack terminated plaintiff's employment.  Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Applejack, Jack P. Appelman, Aaron S. Young, and William Colvin (collectively, Applejack) and Applejack counterclaimed.  Applejack also sought an order enforcing its right to repurchase Plaintiff's stock.  The parties engaged in binding arbitration and following four days of evidentiary hearings, the arbitrator issued his decision.  He found that in October 2006, plaintiff executed an employment contract, stock purchase agreement, and shareholders' agreement.  Pursuant to the stockholder's agreement, the executive stockholders had the right to buy out plaintiff's shares in the event that plaintiff's employment was terminated.  The agreement identified a specific formula for valuing the stock shares and allowed for Applejack to either pay for the stock in full or provide a 10% down payment and a promissory note for payment of the balance in three equal annual installments, plus interest. Plaintiff refused to sell his stock, in part because he misunderstood the terms of the stock purchase agreement.  An arbitrator concluded that Applejack had the right to buy the shares, and it ordered Plaintiff to transfer his stock into an escrow account, pending full performance of all payment obligations. Applejack did not meet its obligation on the first payment and Plaintiff brought an enforcement action.  Plaintiff sought both a judgment confirming the arbitration award as well as an immediate judgment for all amounts awarded by the arbitrator due to Applejack's default.  The court granted Plaintiff's request.  It found that Applejack's default went to the essence of the arbitrator's award and that Applejack could not now resort to the terms of the promissory note to delay its payments. Applejack argued on appeal that the court should have remanded this case to the arbitrator for clarification, although it was not clear what part of the award Applejack believed was ambiguous.  Applejack also suggested (apparently for the first time on appeal) that notwithstanding the arbitrator's decision Plaintiff should simply keep the stock shares because Applejack was unable to pay for them.  Finally, Applejack asserted that the court erred in ordering full payment of the award suggesting that by doing so, the court modified the arbitration award under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) without authority to do so.  It also argued that there was no clear basis for accelerating the payments due. Upon review of the arbitration record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court nor from the arbitration proceedings and affirmed the decision against Applejack: [t]he court imposed an appropriate remedy for Applejack's default, and there was no error."

Respondent Charles Gant possessed a letter of intent to purchase property. He offered to sell the property to Grant Legacy, LLP once he completed the purchase. Grand responded to the offer by agreeing to purchase the property through an unnamed partnership entity with Respondent to be formed at a later date. The new partnership was called "Grand Legacy of Mississippi, LP (Grand-MS). After the purchase, Grand and Grand-MS claimed that Respondent stated he would not profit from the purchase and resale. The two Grands argued that Respondent had a duty to disclose his intent to profit on the original property sale, and that in failing to disclose that information, Respondent committed fraud. The trial court concluded that the Grand-MS partnership agreement contained no clause prohibiting Respondent from making a profit on the land-purchase-transaction. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent, finding he had no duty to disclose any profit made to the newly formed partnership. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the essence of this case centered around the duties limited partners owe one another and the allegation of fraud stemming from an alleged breach of those duties. The Court found no basis by which it would disturb the trial court's findings. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent.

Defendant Four Rivers Packing Company operated an onion packing plant and hired Plaintiff Stuart Mackay as the company's "field man." Plaintiff had been in the onion business for decades and knew many onion farmers. Four Rivers through its general manager Randy Smith (Smith) offered Plaintiff a job that involved purchasing enough onions to keep Four Rivers' packing shed stocked at a price that Smith would set. Plaintiff contended that Smith offered him a long-term employment contract. From 2000 to 2002, financial and managerial setbacks made it difficult for Four Rivers to operate its business, and for Plaintiff to acquire onions at prices set by Smith in order to keep the sheds stocked. In 2003, Four Rivers laid Plaintiff off. Plaintiff filed suit in 2004 alleging breach of the employment contract. At trial following a remand, Four Rivers contended that the parties had not entered into an employment contract for any specified term. A jury would return a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. In a special verdict form, the jury found that the parties had entered into a long term contract of "up to ten years, or such time as the Plaintiff retired." Four Rivers timely appealed, challenging jury instructions given at trial and the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon review of the trial record, the Supreme Court found that the trial court properly instructed the jury and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the verdict. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment against Four Rivers.

This case arose when plaintiff filed a complaint asserting causes of action related to defendant's failure to repay certain loans. Defendant appealed from an amended judgment of the district court denying in part defendant's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 motion to amend the court's August 28, 2008 judgment (original judgment), which, inter alia, requested that the court strike defendant as a party subject to the judgment because plaintiff had not moved for summary judgment against it. The court held that because plaintiff did not move for summary judgment against defendant, the district court erred in granting summary judgment against it. The court also held that the district court's determination that defendant defaulted in failing to file a timely answer to the complaint did not otherwise provide a valid basis for maintaining defendant as a party liable on the amended judgment. Therefore, the court reversed the decision of the district court insofar as it granted summary judgment against defendant and remanded with instructions to strike defendant as a party subject to the amended judgment.

Landlord Downtown Barre Development appealed a trial court's denial of its request for declaratory relief. Landlord argued that Tenant GU Markets of Barre, LLC established a corporate structure that entitled it to terminate the parties' commercial lease.  Landlord claimed the trial court erred by not considering Tenant's conduct when deciding whether tenancy under the terms of their agreement could be terminated.  Upon review of the lease and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court concluded that the essence of Landlord's claim was for "anticipatory repudiation." Even assuming Landlord could rely on this common law principle, Tenant had not indicated to Landlord an intent to breach, nor did Tenant commit an act to render it "unable to perform." Accordingly, because the language of the lease was clear and unambiguous and Tenant's conduct did not constitute notice as required by the plain language of the lease, the Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that landlord was not entitled to terminate the agreement on this ground.

In one of Plaintiff Leprino Foods Company's warehouses, flavoring compounds derived from nearby-stored fruit products contaminated a large quantity of cheese. Leprino's "all-risk" insurance policy with Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance Company excluded contamination unless with was caused by "other physical damage." When Factory Mutual refused coverage on the basis of the contamination exclusion, Leprino sued. A jury determined that the contamination was caused by other physical damage and therefore was covered by the Factory Mutual insurance policy. On appeal, Factory Mutual contended the verdict was not supported by the evidence presented at trial. Specifically, Factory mutual argued that: (1) expert testimony was not presented to prove causation; (2) the jury instructions pertaining to Leprino's cold-storage guidelines were given in error; and (3) Leprino's damages should have been reduced by its settlement with the warehouse. Upon review of the trial record and applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found that Leprino presented sufficient evidence with regard to expert testimony to prove causation. The Court did not find jury instructions to be erroneous. The Court did agree that Leprino's damages should be reduced by the amount of the settlement received from the warehouse. The Court therefore affirmed part and reversed part of the lower court's decisions and remanded the case for recalculation of damages.

TradeComet brought this action against Google for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, arising out of TradeComet's use of Google's "AdWords" search engine advertising platform. Google filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue because TradeComet had accepted the terms and conditions associated with participation in its AdWords program, which included a forum selection clause requiring TradeComet to file suit in state or federal court in Santa Clara County, California, not in New York. At issue was whether a district court called upon to enforce a forum selection clause was required to enforce it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) whenever the clause permitted suit in an alternative forum. The court held that a defendant could also seek enforcement of a forum selection clause in these circumstances through a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. Therefore, in an accompanying summary order, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of TradeComet's complaint.