Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff was an employee who brought claims for wrongful termination, Labor Code violations, and breach of contract against two defendants: the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Public Transportation Services Corporation (PTSC). MTA had created PTSC, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, to provide retirement and employment benefits to certain workers and to manage employees who support MTA’s transportation functions. The plaintiff did not file a prelitigation claim under the Government Claims Act (GCA) before suing these entities.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County first granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of both defendants, finding that the plaintiff had not alleged compliance with the GCA’s claim presentation requirements. The plaintiff was given leave to amend but continued to argue that PTSC was not a public entity subject to the GCA, and that even if it was, the claims presentation requirement should not apply because PTSC had not registered as required by statute. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, finding both defendants to be public entities and that PTSC was not required to register separately from MTA. The court entered judgment for both defendants.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, the plaintiff did not challenge the judgment in favor of MTA but contested the ruling as to PTSC. The appellate court held that PTSC qualifies as a public entity for purposes of the GCA’s claims presentation requirement, given its creation and control by MTA. However, the court found that if PTSC failed to register properly on the Registry of Public Agencies—including with county clerks where it maintains offices—this would excuse the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the GCA. The judgment for MTA was affirmed, but the judgment for PTSC was reversed and remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint. View "Black v. L.A. County Metropolitan Transp. Authority" on Justia Law

A business dispute arose when an individual agreed to sell her furniture and design company to a limited liability company controlled by two individuals for $2.7 million, with payment to be made in installments. The seller also entered into a consulting agreement to assist in the transition but was terminated a few months later. The seller alleged that she did not receive compensation due under the consulting agreement and that the buyer failed to pay the final installment of the purchase price. She asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, and promissory fraud. The defendants counterclaimed and brought in several third parties, but most of those claims were eventually dismissed, leaving several claims—including for declaratory judgment, conversion, slander, breach of contract, and tortious interference—still pending.The Cullman Circuit Court tried only the seller’s promissory fraud and fraudulent inducement claims against the two individual defendants, entering judgment based on a jury verdict for the seller and awarding over $10 million in damages. The court stayed all claims against the corporate defendants after they filed for bankruptcy. Despite multiple claims and parties remaining, the circuit court certified its judgment against the individuals as final under Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Alabama determined that the circuit court’s Rule 54(b) certification was improper. The Supreme Court found that closely intertwined and factually overlapping claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims remained unresolved, and that proceeding in piecemeal fashion risked inconsistent results and unnecessary duplication. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court’s order was not properly certified as final and thus was not appealable at this stage. View "Roberson v. Daniel" on Justia Law

The case involves a Florida-based title insurer that suffered significant financial setbacks, prompting a series of business restructurings and asset transfers. In 2009, the company entered a joint venture with another title insurance group, forming a new entity to handle certain business functions. Over subsequent years, the original company retained substantial assets and continued operations, but further financial decline led to a 2015 agreement in which it transferred assets and liabilities to its business partner, in exchange for the assumption of its policy liabilities. The Florida insurance regulator scrutinized and ultimately approved the transaction after requiring additional commitments from the acquiring party.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida later oversaw the company’s Chapter 11 proceedings. The appointed Creditor Trustee brought an adversary proceeding against the acquiring parties and related entities, alleging that the asset transfer constituted a fraudulent transfer under federal bankruptcy law and Florida statutes, and sought to impose successor liability and alter ego claims. The bankruptcy court held a bench trial, excluding portions of the Trustee’s expert valuation as unreliable, and found that the company had received reasonably equivalent value in the transaction. The court also rejected the successor liability and alter ego theories, finding insufficient evidence of continuity of ownership, improper purpose, or harm to creditors.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida affirmed the bankruptcy court’s rulings. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the record and affirmed the district court’s order. The Eleventh Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not err in excluding the Trustee’s expert, that the asset transfer was for reasonably equivalent value and not fraudulent, and that the successor liability and alter ego claims failed for lack of evidence and legal sufficiency. View "Stermer v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Two Saudi Arabian companies, Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company and Al Rushaid Trading Company, specialized in helping foreign manufacturers access the Saudi oil and gas market. Over several decades, they entered into various agreements with Dresser-Rand Group (DRG), including exclusive sales representation and joint venture contracts related to the sale and servicing of DRG products in Saudi Arabia. In 2014, Siemens Energy announced its acquisition of DRG, which was completed in 2015. After the acquisition, Al Rushaid alleged that Siemens excluded them from contracts and joint venture benefits, misused proprietary information, and diverted business opportunities.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida first dismissed Al Rushaid’s original complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading but allowed amendment. Al Rushaid then filed an amended complaint asserting claims for tortious interference, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed all claims without prejudice, finding that Siemens was not a stranger to the relevant business relationships due to its ownership of DRG, that the unfair competition claim was improperly pleaded and lacked necessary elements, and that the unjust enrichment claim failed to meet pleading standards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. The court held that Siemens, as owner of DRG, was not a stranger to the contracts or business relationships under Florida law, defeating the tortious interference claims. The unfair competition claim was dismissed as a shotgun pleading and for failure to allege required elements. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed for lack of clarity and because express contracts governed the subject matter. The district court’s dismissal of all claims without prejudice was affirmed. View "Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company v. Siemens Energy Incorporated" on Justia Law

A nonprofit corporation purchased a 192-unit apartment complex from a government agency in 1994 at a significant discount. In exchange, the purchaser agreed by contract to rent all units at below-market rates to low-income families for 40 years and to comply with annual reporting and administrative fee requirements. Around 2016, the purchaser stopped fulfilling these obligations, including the reporting and fee provisions. The government’s successor agency, through its monitoring agent, notified the purchaser of the breach and initiated legal action seeking remedies under the contract.The purchaser counterclaimed in state court, seeking a declaration that the agreement was no longer enforceable and an injunction against further enforcement. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as successor to the original government agency, intervened, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The purchaser argued that the contract’s obligations ended when Congress repealed the statute that created the original agency and authorized such agreements. The district court rejected this argument, holding that the contract remained enforceable, dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, and remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the contract’s plain language required the purchaser to comply with its obligations for the full 40-year term, regardless of the repeal of the underlying statute. The court found that the FDIC, as successor, retained both contractual and statutory authority to enforce the agreement. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the counterclaim, concluding that the agreement remains enforceable and the purchaser is still bound by its terms. View "Affordable Housing Group, Inc. v. Florida Housing Affordability, Inc." on Justia Law

A Maryland real estate investment trust with over 12,000 shareholders entered into an advisory agreement with UMTH General Services, L.P. and its affiliates to manage the trust’s investments and operations. The agreement stated that the advisor was in a fiduciary relationship with the trust and its shareholders, but individual shareholders were not parties to the agreement. After allegations of mismanagement and improper advancement of legal fees surfaced, a shareholder, Nexpoint Diversified Real Estate Trust, sued derivatively in Maryland. The Maryland court dismissed the claims for lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction. Nexpoint then transferred its shares to a subsidiary, which, along with Nexpoint, sued the advisors directly in Texas, alleging corporate waste and mismanagement, and claimed the advisory agreement created a duty to individual shareholders.In the 191st District Court of Dallas County, the advisors filed a plea to the jurisdiction, a verified plea in abatement, and special exceptions, arguing that the claims were derivative and belonged to the trust, so the shareholders lacked standing and capacity to sue directly. The trial court denied these motions. The advisors sought mandamus relief from the Fifth Court of Appeals, which was denied, and then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas held that while the shareholders alleged a financial injury sufficient for constitutional standing, they lacked the capacity to sue individually because the advisory agreement did not create a duty to individual shareholders, nor did it confer third-party beneficiary status. The agreement benefited shareholders collectively through the trust, not individually. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to vacate its order and dismiss the case with prejudice, holding that shareholders must pursue such claims derivatively and in the proper forum as specified by the trust’s governing documents. View "IN RE UMTH GENERAL SERVICES, L.P." on Justia Law

A company developed a specialized vehicle-mounted stairway, with design work primarily performed by the founder’s son, who was promised equity in the business but never received it due to the majority owner’s repeated refusals. The son, with his father’s assistance, eventually obtained a patent for the design, which he used as leverage to seek compensation. Negotiations between the parties failed, leading to the father’s removal as company president and the company filing suit against both the father and son. The company alleged breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, business conspiracy, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of contract, while the son counterclaimed for patent infringement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the father and son on all claims except a breach of contract claim against the father and the son’s patent counterclaim. The court found most claims time-barred or unsupported by evidence, and later, the company voluntarily dismissed its remaining claim. The son’s patent was invalidated by a jury. The district court also awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to the father as the prevailing party under the company’s operating agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that the company’s claims were either time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations or failed on the merits, as there was no evidence the son benefited from the patent or that he had signed a non-disclosure agreement. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the father, finding no error in the district court’s application of Delaware law or its determination of the prevailing party. View "Mission Integrated Technologies, LLC v. Clemente" on Justia Law

A commercial real estate broker and consultant partnered with three brothers who owned an architecture and construction company to develop and lease a commercial property. They planned to form a limited liability company (LLC) as equal members, contributing professional services and cash, but did not formalize their agreement in writing. After a dispute arose over a broker commission, the brothers executed a backdated operating agreement that excluded the broker from LLC membership. The broker alleged he was unfairly cut out of the deal and sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.The Marshall Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the brothers on the contract claim, finding that Indiana law required written confirmation for LLC membership, which the broker lacked. The court also denied the broker’s request for a jury trial on the unjust enrichment claim, holding that both the claim and the defense of unclean hands were equitable issues for the judge. After a bench trial, the court ruled against the broker on unjust enrichment, finding he failed to prove his claim and that unclean hands barred recovery.On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that initial LLC membership could be established by oral agreement and that unjust enrichment claims for money damages were legal claims entitled to a jury trial. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the appellate decision.The Indiana Supreme Court held that LLC membership under the Business Flexibility Act requires either a written operating agreement or written confirmation, and the broker was not a member as a matter of law. However, genuine factual disputes remained regarding whether the brothers breached an agreement to make him a member, precluding summary judgment. The Court also held that unjust enrichment claims for money damages are legal claims subject to a jury trial, and the unclean hands doctrine may be asserted as a defense. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded for a jury trial on both claims. View "Andrew Nemeth Properties, LLC v. Panzica" on Justia Law

Two individuals, Kellogg and Mathiesen, formed a limited liability company (LLC) to provide in-home personal care services. Over time, disputes arose regarding ownership interests, capital contributions, and management of the company. The parties executed several agreements, including a 2017 contract transferring Mathiesen’s ownership to Kellogg due to his ineligibility as a Medicaid provider, and a 2019 contract in which Kellogg sold Mathiesen a 50% interest in the LLC’s assets. Allegations of mismanagement, misuse of company funds, and inappropriate conduct by Mathiesen led to litigation between the parties, including derivative claims and counterclaims. Kellogg also sought judicial dissolution of the LLC, citing unlawful conduct and irreconcilable differences.The District Court for Douglas County held a bench trial and found both Kellogg and Mathiesen to be 50-percent co-owners or managers of the LLC. The court denied all derivative claims and counterclaims, citing unclean hands by both parties. However, the court granted Kellogg’s application for dissolution, finding Mathiesen’s conduct oppressive and fraudulent, and ordered the appointment of a receiver to oversee the dissolution and possible sale of the company. Mathiesen appealed both the judgment and the receiver’s appointment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the consolidated appeals, limiting its review to plain error due to deficiencies in Mathiesen’s appellate briefing. The court determined it had jurisdiction over both appeals and addressed Mathiesen’s argument that Kellogg lacked standing. The court held that Kellogg remained a member of the LLC at the time of filing her derivative action and thus had standing. Finding no plain error in the record, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and the order appointing a receiver. View "Kellogg v. Mathiesen" on Justia Law

Pro-Mark Services, Inc., a general contracting construction company, obtained payment and performance bonds from Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company as required by the Miller Act. To facilitate this, Pro-Mark and other indemnitors entered into a General Indemnity Agreement (GIA) with Hartford, assigning certain rights related to bonded contracts. Later, Pro-Mark entered into two substantial business loan agreements with Capital Credit Union (CCU), secured by most of Pro-Mark’s assets, including deposit accounts. Recognizing potential conflicts over asset priorities, Hartford and CCU executed an Intercreditor Collateral Agreement (ICA) to define their respective rights and priorities in Pro-Mark’s assets, distinguishing between “Bank Priority Collateral” and “Surety Priority Collateral,” and specifying how proceeds should be distributed.After Pro-Mark filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota, CCU placed an administrative freeze on Pro-Mark’s deposit accounts and moved for relief from the automatic stay to exercise its right of setoff against the funds in those accounts. Hartford objected, claiming a superior interest in the funds based on the GIA and ICA. The bankruptcy court held hearings and, after considering the parties’ briefs and stipulated facts, granted CCU’s motion, allowing it to set off the funds. The bankruptcy court found CCU had met its burden for setoff and determined Hartford did not have a sufficient interest in the deposited funds, focusing on the GIA and North Dakota’s Uniform Commercial Code, and not the ICA.On appeal, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit held that while the bankruptcy court had authority to adjudicate the priority dispute, it erred by failing to analyze the parties’ respective rights under the ICA, which governed the priority of distributions. The Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Capital Credit Union" on Justia Law