Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Edward and Linda Diaz purchased a motorhome from a California dealer, receiving warranties from the manufacturer that included a clause requiring any legal disputes related to the warranties to be litigated exclusively in Indiana, where the motorhome was manufactured. The warranties also contained a choice-of-law provision favoring Indiana law and a waiver of jury trial. After experiencing issues with the vehicle that were not remedied under warranty, the Diazes sued the manufacturer, dealer, and lender in California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging failure to repair defects and refusal to replace or refund the vehicle.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants’ motion to stay the California action, enforcing the forum selection clause. The manufacturer had offered to stipulate that it would not oppose application of California’s Song-Beverly Act or a jury trial if the Diazes pursued their claims in Indiana. The court ordered the manufacturer to sign such a stipulation, holding that the Diazes could seek to lift the stay if Indiana courts declined to apply California law.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, concluded that the forum selection clause was unenforceable. The court held that the warranty’s terms, including the forum selection and choice-of-law provisions, violated California public policy by purporting to waive unwaivable statutory rights under the Song-Beverly Act. The court determined that the manufacturer’s post hoc offer to stipulate to California law did not cure the unconscionability present at contract formation and that severance of the unlawful terms would not further the interests of justice. As a result, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order staying the California action and directed entry of a new order denying the stay. View "Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc." on Justia Law

A franchisee brought several claims against a franchisor and related parties, including allegations of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violations of Florida law, and Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) violations. The parties settled, with the franchisee receiving $50,000 and both sides signing a mutual release that broadly barred any future claims. The agreement was not approved by a court or the Department of Labor and contained a confidentiality provision. Subsequently, the franchisee initiated a separate action for fraudulent transfer and other non-FLSA claims, arguing these were not barred by the settlement’s release.After the settlement, the franchisee filed a supplemental complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging fraudulent transfer and related non-FLSA claims. The franchisor responded with a motion for judgment on the pleadings, citing the settlement’s release. The franchisor also filed counterclaims, including breach of contract based on the franchisee’s new filings. The franchisee attempted to amend his complaint to add a claim for rescission, arguing fraudulent inducement, but the magistrate judge denied this motion, finding it was inadequately pleaded and untimely. The franchisee did not properly object to this denial before the district judge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered whether the unapproved settlement agreement barred the non-FLSA claims. The court held that, while FLSA claims cannot be waived or settled without court or Department of Labor approval, non-FLSA claims may be released according to state contract law. The court found the release enforceable under Florida law as to non-FLSA claims and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the fraudulent transfer claims and grant of summary judgment to the franchisor on its counterclaims. The court also ruled the franchisee had waived his right to appeal the denial of his motion to amend. View "O'Neal v. American Shaman Franchise Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Lanesborough 2000, LLC and Nextres, LLC entered into a loan agreement for the funding of a self-storage facility in Corning, New York. The deal included an arbitration agreement that required disputes to be resolved by binding arbitration. Lanesborough alleged that Nextres breached the agreement by failing to disburse loan funds as promised. An arbitrator found in favor of Lanesborough, awarding consequential damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees based on Nextres’s bad faith conduct. The arbitration agreement contained a waiver of the “right to appeal,” but did not specify its scope.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York partially confirmed the arbitrator’s awards. It confirmed the awards of consequential damages, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees, finding that the fee award was permissible because it was based on a finding of bad faith. The District Court also granted Lanesborough’s requests for injunctive relief by ordering Nextres to comply with the loan agreement and enjoining Nextres from pursuing foreclosure actions, including a pending state court foreclosure against a related party. The District Court awarded Lanesborough post-award prejudgment interest and stayed enforcement of its judgment pending appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit first held that the parties’ contractual waiver of the “right to appeal” was ambiguous and not sufficiently clear or unequivocal to preclude appellate review. On the merits, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the arbitrator’s awards and its grant of post-award prejudgment interest. However, it vacated the district court’s injunction barring the state-court foreclosure action because the lower court had not considered whether the injunction was consistent with the Anti-Injunction Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Lanesborough 2000, LLC v. Nextres, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a New Hampshire-based corporation, acquired patents and software from a military contractor and sought to adapt the technology for consumer telecommunications. The defendant, a Finnish multinational, manufactures cellular base stations. In 2015, the parties began discussions about integrating the plaintiff’s software into the defendant’s products. By February 2017, negotiations focused on two main points: a fee for integration work and a lump sum for a perpetual software license. On June 6, 2017, the plaintiff alleges both parties orally agreed to a $3 million integration fee and a $20 million license fee. The defendant disputes whether such an oral agreement occurred. The plaintiff continued work based on this understanding. Later, the defendant offered a lower license fee in a draft written contract, which the plaintiff rejected. Eventually, the defendant canceled the project.After cancellation, the plaintiff sued the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Following a ten-day trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on breach of contract and promissory estoppel, awarding $23 million in damages. The district court, considering the defendant’s statute-of-frauds defense, determined that the core issue was whether the perpetual license agreement could be performed within one year. The court found this, along with other issues, raised novel questions of New Hampshire law without binding precedent, and certified three questions to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the certified questions. It held that, under New Hampshire law, obligations imposed by a perpetual intellectual property license can be performed within one year, because, absent express language to the contrary, the licensor’s obligations are fulfilled upon granting the license. The court declined to answer the other two certified questions, as its answer to the first resolved the determinative legal issue. The case was remanded to the district court. View "Collision Commc'ns v. Nokia Solutions and Networks OY" on Justia Law

Premium Healthcare Solutions, LLC, an Illinois company, had two competing judgment creditors: Vivek Bedi and MedLegal Solutions, Inc. Bedi obtained a state court judgment against “Premier Healthcare Solutions, LLC” in 2022, which was a misnomer for Premium. His lien on Premium’s assets was thus not discoverable to other creditors. MedLegal, a medical billing company, later secured an arbitration award and a federal court judgment against Premium in 2024 after discovering Premium had breached their contract. Both Bedi and MedLegal initiated collection efforts targeting Premium’s assets, particularly its accounts receivable managed by third parties.After Bedi discovered the misnomer in his judgment, he obtained a corrective order in Illinois state court in September 2024, amending his judgment nunc pro tunc to name Premium as the debtor and making the correction effective as of the original judgment date. Concerned that Bedi’s corrected judgment might threaten its priority, MedLegal sought a federal court order establishing its claim as superior. In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Bedi intervened but focused his opposition on jurisdictional grounds, invoking the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The district court rejected this argument and granted MedLegal’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling MedLegal’s interest as superior. The court subsequently issued a turnover order requiring certain third parties to transfer Premium’s assets to MedLegal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that appellate jurisdiction was proper because the February 11, 2025, turnover order was a final decision. The Seventh Circuit also found that Rooker-Feldman did not bar the district court’s jurisdiction, as MedLegal was not a party to the prior state court action. Finally, because Bedi failed to raise any substantive arguments on priority in the district court, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s turnover order in favor of MedLegal. View "Bedi v Premium Healthcare Solutions LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who provided subadvisory investment services and loaned $1.5 million to FolioMetrix (personally guaranteed by two individuals), later engaged with defendants involved in a proposed merger of investment firms. Plaintiffs alleged that during merger negotiations, defendant Putnam promised to relieve the original borrowers of their obligations and personally assume the debt. Subsequent communications referenced intentions to transfer the loan liability to the new entity, but when plaintiffs sought a formal promissory note, defendants refused. Ultimately, defendants did not repay any portion of the loan.Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in March 2019, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. At trial, the central dispute was whether defendants had agreed to assume the loan obligations under the promissory note. Plaintiffs argued that the agreement was formed through emails and conduct, while defendants denied any assumption of liability. The jury found in favor of defendants, determining no contract was formed and no promise was made to repay the loans. Following trial, the court awarded defendants attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717, based on a fee provision in the original promissory note, after reducing the requested amount.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, addressed several issues. It ruled that the automatic bankruptcy stay did not preclude resolution of the appeal because the debtor (NAI) was the plaintiff rather than a defendant. The court rejected plaintiffs’ claims of error regarding jury instructions on contract formation, finding insufficient argument and no prejudice. It affirmed the attorney fee award, concluding the action was “on the contract” containing the fee provision, and held the fee amount was within the trial court’s discretion. The judgment and fee order were affirmed. View "Navellier v. Putnam" on Justia Law

A Delaware limited liability company entered into an agreement to purchase real property in Jefferson County, Alabama, from an Alabama limited partnership. The agreement included provisions for the recovery of attorneys’ fees by the prevailing party in litigation arising from the contract. Disputes arose regarding whether the buyer satisfied conditions to extend the closing date, leading the seller to declare the agreement terminated. The buyer sued the seller, the seller’s general partner (a California corporation), and various individual limited partners (in both their personal capacities and as trustees of family trusts), seeking among other relief, damages for breach of contract and a declaration of rights under the agreement. The contract also provided for reimbursement of transaction costs and attorneys’ fees under certain circumstances.The case proceeded in the Jefferson Circuit Court. The court granted summary judgment for the buyer on liability, finding the seller had breached the agreement, and set the issue of damages for a jury trial. Subsequently, disputes arose about whether attorneys’ fees should be decided by the jury or the court. The circuit court ruled that attorneys’ fees recoverable by the prevailing party under the contract would be determined by the court after trial, not by the jury. The seller, general partner, and limited partners sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court of Alabama, arguing they were entitled to a jury trial on attorneys’ fees.The Supreme Court of Alabama denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to a jury determination of prevailing party attorneys’ fees under the contract, because they did not adequately show that the Alabama Constitution or statutes provide such a right for this type of claim. The Court declined to overrule the circuit court’s decision to reserve the issue of attorneys’ fees for judicial determination following the trial on damages. View "Ex parte Vestavia Hills, Ltd." on Justia Law

Taylor L. Wood, her husband, and her son received medical care from physicians employed by Intermountain Emergency Physicians, PLLC (IEP). The resulting medical debt was assigned to Medical Recovery Services, LLC (MRS) for collection. After Wood’s attorneys alleged violations of state law, the Woods and IEP entered into a settlement that discharged the debt and provided payment to the Woods. Nevertheless, MRS later sued Wood to collect the same debt. Wood responded by counterclaiming and bringing IEP into the case as a third-party defendant, relying on the settlement agreement. MRS dismissed its complaint upon learning of the prior settlement, and all claims were eventually dismissed by the court.After judgment was entered, both sides sought a determination of the prevailing party and an award of attorney fees. The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Bingham County, found that Wood was the prevailing party over MRS and ordered MRS to pay Wood’s costs and attorney fees, concluding that MRS’s complaint was frivolous due to lack of proper investigation and communication regarding the settlement. MRS and IEP filed a first motion for reconsideration of the fees order, which was denied. They then filed a second motion for reconsideration, also denied, and subsequently appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s order awarding costs and attorney fees to Wood because MRS and IEP’s notice of appeal from that order was untimely under Idaho Appellate Rule 14(a). The court did have jurisdiction to review the denial of the second motion for reconsideration, but because MRS and IEP failed to provide argument or authority on that issue, they waived it. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the second motion for reconsideration. View "Medical Recovery Services, LLC v. Wood" on Justia Law

Daevieon Towns purchased a new Hyundai Elantra in 2016, and over the next 19 months, the car required multiple repairs for alleged electrical and engine defects. In March 2018, either Towns or his wife, Lashona Johnson, requested that Hyundai buy back the defective vehicle. Before Hyundai acted, the car was involved in a collision, declared a total loss, and Johnson’s insurance paid her $14,710.91.Towns initially sued Hyundai Motor America in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. As trial approached, Towns amended his complaint to add Johnson as a plaintiff, arguing she was the primary driver and responsible for the vehicle. The trial court allowed the amendment, finding Johnson was not a buyer but permitted her to proceed based on its interpretation of Patel v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. At trial, the jury found for Towns and Johnson, awarding damages and civil penalties. However, the court reduced the damages by the insurance payout and adjusted the prejudgment interest accordingly. Both parties challenged the judgment and costs in post-trial motions.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that only a buyer has standing under the Act, so Johnson could not be a plaintiff. The court also held that third-party insurance payments do not reduce statutory damages under the Act, following the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC. Furthermore, prejudgment interest is available under Civil Code section 3288 because Hyundai’s statutory obligations do not arise from contract. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to enter a modified judgment and reconsider costs. View "Towns v. Hyundai Motor America" on Justia Law

Following Hurricane Laura, a Texas-based company, Top Notch Movers, provided moving services in Alabama and Louisiana to Shamrock Enterprises, an Alabama-based LLC. Top Notch sent a demand letter to Shamrock seeking payment for over $170,000 in unpaid invoices. Subsequently, Top Notch filed suit in Texas for nonpayment, listing Shamrock’s principal office as a Foley, Alabama address and seeking substituted service via the Texas Secretary of State under section 5.251(1)(A) of the Texas Business Organizations Code. The Secretary of State attempted to forward process to the Foley address, but the mailing was returned as undeliverable. Shamrock did not appear, and Top Notch obtained a default judgment, which was also mailed to the same address and returned.Shamrock later initiated a restricted appeal, arguing that service of process was improper. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the default judgment, finding that Shamrock was amenable to substituted service under the cited statute and that the Secretary of State’s Whitney certificate constituted irrebuttable proof of proper service.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and determined that even if Shamrock was subject to substituted service under section 5.251(1)(A), the record did not show that process was forwarded to the statutorily required address—Shamrock’s “most recent address . . . on file with the secretary of state.” The court clarified that a Whitney certificate only proves that process was sent to the address provided, not that the statutory requirements were met, and strict compliance is necessary for a valid default judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacated the default judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "SHAMROCK ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TOP NOTCH MOVERS, LLC" on Justia Law