Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In this case, Four Thirteen, LLC filed a complaint against three corporate entities and several individuals, including Joshua Wearmouth, Larry Stephens, Edmond X. Moriniere, Ronald G. Meyers, and David C. Norton. The complaint alleged that Wearmouth and Stephens solicited funds from Four Thirteen for a business venture involving Brazilian carbon credits, which turned out to be fraudulent. Four Thirteen claimed that the corporate entities did not own the carbon credits and that Wearmouth and Stephens made numerous misrepresentations. The complaint included claims of breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and other related allegations.The District Court of Laramie County reviewed the case and rejected the affidavits of non-involvement filed by Moriniere, Meyers, and Norton, who sought dismissal from the suit. The court found that there were factual issues regarding their involvement in the alleged fraud. Additionally, the district court imposed discovery sanctions and entered a default judgment against all defendants, including the individual appellants, for failing to comply with discovery orders.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision regarding the affidavits of non-involvement. The Supreme Court determined that the district court correctly found that there were factual disputes about the involvement of Moriniere, Meyers, and Norton, which precluded their dismissal from the case.However, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision to impose discovery sanctions against the individual appellants. The Supreme Court found that the appellants were not given proper notice that they were subject to sanctions under Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) and that there was no evidence they violated any prior discovery order. The court held that the sanctions against the individual appellants were not justified and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Stephensv. Four Thirteen, LLC" on Justia Law

VFS Leasing Co. ("VFS") leased trucks to Time Definite Leasing, LLC ("TDL"), which insured the trucks with Markel American Insurance Company ("Markel American"). Markel American issued joint checks to VFS and TDL for insurance claims, but TDL cashed the checks without VFS's endorsement and kept the proceeds. VFS sued Markel American for breach of contract, claiming it was owed the funds from the joint checks.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of VFS, holding that Markel American breached the insurance contract by failing to ensure VFS received the funds. The court found that under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Markel American's obligation was not discharged because the checks were not properly endorsed by both co-payees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether Markel American's obligation to VFS was discharged when the drawee bank improperly accepted the joint checks. The court concluded that under Florida Statute § 673.4141(3), a drawer's obligation is discharged when a bank accepts a jointly issued check, regardless of whether both co-payees endorsed it. The court noted that while VFS could pursue a conversion claim against the bank, Markel American's obligation was discharged upon the bank's acceptance of the checks.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of VFS and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VFS Leasing Co. v. Markel Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an entrepreneur, helped form a medical business with a surgeon. The business, structured as a limited liability company (LLC), operated surgery centers and distributed profits to its members, including the plaintiff. Over time, the plaintiff became inactive but continued to receive substantial profits. Tensions arose when the plaintiff refused buyout offers from other members. The plaintiff then directed his attorney to send a threatening letter to various stakeholders, alleging illegal activities within the company. This letter caused significant concern among the recipients, leading the company to warn the plaintiff that he would be ejected without compensation if he did not retract his statements within 30 days. The plaintiff refused, and the company subsequently ousted him, valuing his shares at zero.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County rejected all of the plaintiff's claims. The court found that the plaintiff's letter constituted a "terminating event" under the company's operating agreement, justifying his ejection without compensation. The court also ruled that the business judgment rule protected the company's decision to remove the plaintiff, as it was made in the best interests of the company. The plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing were all dismissed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appellate court held that the business judgment rule applied, as the company's decision to eject the plaintiff was rational and made in good faith. The court also found that the plaintiff's loss of his shares was not an illegal forfeiture, as it was reasonably related to the harm his actions could have caused the company. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding procedural irregularities and the valuation of his shares, concluding that the company's actions were justified and lawful. View "Tuli v. Specialty Surgical Center of Thousand Oaks, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Jay and Siv Bennett, along with their corporation Kesha Marketing, Inc., were long-time associates of Isagenix International LLC, a multi-level marketing company. In May 2023, Isagenix informed the Bennetts that it would not renew their accounts, which were set to expire in June 2023. The Bennetts, whose sole income came from Isagenix commissions, sued the company and obtained a preliminary injunction to prevent the termination of their business relationship.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the Bennetts were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The court concluded that the contracts between the Bennetts and Isagenix were likely bilateral and that the modifications allowing Isagenix to terminate the contracts at will were not valid under Arizona law. The district court also found that the Bennetts would suffer irreparable harm due to the contractual limitation on consequential damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court that the Bennetts had shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The Ninth Circuit held that the contracts were likely bilateral and that the modifications were not validly executed under Arizona law. However, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred in its analysis of irreparable harm. The appellate court held that a contractual limitation on consequential damages does not constitute irreparable harm for purposes of equity. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the Bennetts' other theories of irreparable injury. View "BENNETT V. ISAGENIX INTERNATIONAL LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the control of Byju’s Alpha, Inc., a Delaware subsidiary of Think and Learn Private Ltd. (T&L), an Indian company. Byju’s Alpha entered into a $1.2 billion loan agreement with GLAS Trust Company LLC (GLAS) as the administrative and collateral agent. The agreement required Whitehat, another T&L subsidiary, to become a guarantor, contingent on approval from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). However, changes in RBI regulations made it impossible for Whitehat to obtain the necessary approval.The Court of Chancery of Delaware held a trial and ruled that Timothy R. Pohl was the sole director and officer of Byju’s Alpha, following actions taken by GLAS to enforce its rights under the loan agreement. The court found that the failure of Whitehat to accede as a guarantor constituted a breach of the loan agreement, allowing GLAS to take control of Byju’s Alpha’s shares and appoint Pohl as the sole director and officer.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Chancery’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the amendments to the loan agreement explicitly defined Whitehat’s failure to accede as a “Specified Default,” entitling GLAS to enforce its remedies. The court also rejected the impossibility defense, concluding that the changes in RBI regulations were foreseeable and could have been guarded against in the contract. The court found that the sophisticated parties involved should have anticipated the regulatory changes and included provisions to address such risks.In conclusion, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Pohl was the sole director and officer of Byju’s Alpha, and that GLAS was entitled to enforce its remedies under the loan agreement due to the breach caused by Whitehat’s failure to accede as a guarantor. View "Ravindran v. GLAS Trust Company LLC" on Justia Law

Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC supplied Pavestone, LLC with aggregate used to manufacture pavers. After customers complained about efflorescence on the pavers, Pavestone determined that sodium carbonate in Hi-Tech’s aggregate caused the issue. Pavestone sued Hi-Tech for negligence, products liability, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. The district court ruled in favor of Pavestone on the breach of warranty and products liability claims.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County conducted a bench trial and found that Hi-Tech breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and was liable under products liability. Hi-Tech appealed the decision, arguing that it did not know of Pavestone’s specific need for sodium-free aggregate and that the economic loss doctrine barred Pavestone’s tort claims.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that Hi-Tech’s sale of aggregate carried an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because Hi-Tech had reason to know Pavestone’s intended use. The court adopted the reasoning of UCC § 2-315, which does not require proof of a seller’s actual knowledge if the seller had reason to know the product’s intended purpose. The court also held that Pavestone was excused from testing the aggregate for sodium carbonate because the defect was latent and not detectable through a simple examination.However, the court reversed the district court’s ruling on the products liability claim, holding that the economic loss doctrine precluded Pavestone’s noncontractual claims. The doctrine applies when the damage is to the product itself and not to other property. Pavestone did not provide sufficient evidence of damage to property other than the pavers. Thus, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s judgment on the warranty claim but reversed its judgment on the products liability claims. View "Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC v. Pavestone, LLC" on Justia Law

Occidental Petroleum Corporation acquired Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in 2019, resulting in a trust holding a significant amount of Occidental stock. Wells Fargo, acting as trustee, agreed via email to sell the stock between January 6 and January 10, 2020. However, Wells Fargo failed to execute the sale until March 2020, by which time the stock's value had significantly decreased, causing a loss of over $30 million. Occidental sued Wells Fargo for breach of contract based on the email chain and the Trust Agreement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Occidental, finding that Wells Fargo breached the Trust Agreement by failing to sell the stock as planned. The court also dismissed Wells Fargo’s counterclaim and affirmative defenses and awarded damages and attorney’s fees to Occidental.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the 2019 email chain did not constitute a contract due to lack of consideration. However, Wells Fargo was judicially estopped from arguing that the Trust Agreement was not a contract, as it had previously asserted that the relationship was contractual to dismiss Occidental’s fiduciary-duty claim. The court affirmed that Wells Fargo breached the Trust Agreement by failing to prudently manage the Trust’s assets.The Fifth Circuit also upheld the district court’s calculation of damages, rejecting Wells Fargo’s argument that reinvestment should have been considered. The court found that reinvestment was speculative and unsupported by the record. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of Wells Fargo’s counterclaim and affirmative defenses, as Wells Fargo failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact. Finally, the court upheld the award of attorney’s fees, finding no basis for segregating fees based on Wells Fargo’s different capacities. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Occidental Petroleum v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Robert and Stephen Samuelian (the Samuelians) and Life Generations Healthcare, LLC (the Company), which they co-founded along with Thomas Olds, Jr. The Samuelians sold a portion of their interest in the Company, and the new operating agreement included a noncompetition provision. The Samuelians later challenged this provision in arbitration, arguing it was unenforceable under California law.The arbitrator found the noncompetition provision invalid per se under California Business and Professions Code section 16600, as it arose from the sale of a business interest. The arbitrator also ruled that the Samuelians did not owe fiduciary duties to the Company because they were members of a manager-managed limited liability company. The Company argued that the arbitrator had legally erred by applying the per se standard instead of the reasonableness standard. The trial court reviewed the arbitrator’s ruling de novo, found no error, and confirmed the award.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the arbitrator had applied the wrong standard under section 16600. The court concluded that noncompetition agreements arising from the partial sale of a business interest should be evaluated under the reasonableness standard, not the per se standard. The court reasoned that a partial sale leaves the seller with some ongoing connection to the business, which could have procompetitive benefits. Therefore, such restraints require further scrutiny to determine their reasonableness.The court reversed the trial court’s judgment confirming the arbitration award and directed the trial court to enter an order denying the Samuelians’ petition to confirm the award and granting the Company’s motion to vacate the entire award, including the portion awarding attorney fees and costs. View "Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

A business dispute arose between M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. (M&M), a Pennsylvania company, and Cambria Company, LLC (Cambria), a Minnesota company. Cambria manufactures and sells quartz surface products, while M&M sells custom countertops and cabinetry. In 2009, the two companies entered into a business relationship where M&M would purchase finished quartz products from Cambria. In 2017, Cambria terminated the relationship, claiming M&M owed over $180,000 for delivered products. Cambria sued for the unpaid amount, and M&M counterclaimed under the Minnesota Franchise Act, alleging unfair termination practices.The district court granted summary judgment for Cambria on M&M’s counterclaim, ruling that M&M did not pay a franchise fee, a requirement under the Act to qualify as a franchise. The court noted that payments for goods at a bona fide wholesale price are excluded from the definition of a franchise fee. The court of appeals affirmed, agreeing that M&M did not pay a franchise fee and additionally concluded that M&M, being an out-of-state company, was precluded from bringing a claim under the Act.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Minnesota Franchise Act does not categorically preclude an out-of-state company from enforcing a claim for unfair practices. However, the court agreed with the lower courts that M&M did not pay a franchise fee. The court found that M&M’s payments to Cambria for finished quartz products were at a bona fide wholesale price and did not include a hidden franchise fee. Therefore, the relationship between M&M and Cambria did not constitute a franchise under the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Cambria. View "Cambria Company, LLC vs. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the enforcement of a partnership agreement following the death of a partner. Mary Ann Caruso and her sons, Peter and John, formed a partnership in 1983 to operate Hays Land Company (HLC). After Mary Ann's death, Peter and John continued the business until John's death in 2003. John's wife, Geraldine, became the executrix of his estate. Peter did not exercise the buy-out provision in the partnership agreement after John's death, and he continued to operate HLC with Geraldine, who received 50% of the business proceeds.The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County initially granted summary judgment in favor of Sandra, Peter's daughter and executrix of his estate, ruling that the Dead Man’s Act precluded Geraldine from proving the partnership agreement's continued applicability. The Superior Court reversed, finding sufficient evidence that Peter and Geraldine intended to continue the partnership under the original agreement. On remand, the trial court ordered specific performance of the buy-out provision, which the Superior Court affirmed.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and concluded that Geraldine could not enforce the partnership agreement because she was neither an original party to the agreement nor a third-party beneficiary. The court found no evidence that Peter and Geraldine explicitly agreed to be bound by the original partnership agreement after John's death. The court emphasized that the formation of a new partnership between Peter and Geraldine did not automatically incorporate the terms of the original agreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's order, holding that Geraldine could not compel specific performance of the buy-out provision against Sandra. View "In Re: Estate of P. Caruso" on Justia Law