Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between an individual and two defendants whom he sued for breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. The plaintiff then filed multiple post-trial and post-judgment motions, alleging, among other things, that new evidence showed interference in the case by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All of these motions were denied. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed several motions seeking to disqualify the presiding judge for alleged bias and misconduct, each of which was also denied.Following these filings, the trial court judge issued an order declaring the plaintiff a vexatious litigant and enjoining him from filing further pleadings without first obtaining the court’s permission. The plaintiff appealed, raising issues about the vexatious litigant order, the denial of his motions to disqualify the judge, and the completeness of the record on appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the trial court abused its discretion by declaring the plaintiff a vexatious litigant and issuing a pre-filing order without first providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court vacated the vexatious litigant order and remanded for further proceedings, requiring the trial court to allow the plaintiff a chance to be heard and then, if warranted, issue a substantive order with adequate analysis. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motions for judicial disqualification, finding the motions procedurally deficient, and concluded that the trial court transmitted a sufficient record on appeal. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Heaven v. Weber" on Justia Law

A county entered into a contract in the late 1970s with various firms for the construction of a new jail, which was completed in 1981. Decades later, during a renovation in 2021, a construction defect was discovered: the original roof was not properly attached to the masonry walls. The county paid for repairs and, in 2023, sued the original architect, the general contractor, and the masonry subcontractor for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation or nondisclosure, and breach of contract. Each defendant raised the statute of repose in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536 as a defense, arguing the claims were filed more than 12 years after completion of the jail.The Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County sustained the defendants’ preliminary objections, finding the statute of repose applied because the jail was completed in 1981, and the defendants had performed the qualifying construction services. The court further held that the doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi, which sometimes allows government entities to avoid statutes of limitations, did not apply to the statute of repose. The county appealed.The Commonwealth Court affirmed, assuming for argument's sake that nullum tempus could apply to statutes of repose, but concluding the county failed to meet the requirements for invoking the doctrine because constructing the jail was not enforcing an obligation imposed by law.Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that nullum tempus cannot preclude the application of the Section 5536 statute of repose. The court concluded the statute of repose is a legislative judgment eliminating liability for construction professionals after 12 years, and its purpose cannot be undermined by the common law doctrine of nullum tempus. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order upholding dismissal of the complaint. View "Clearfield County v. Transystems Corp." on Justia Law

A former Army specialist was seriously injured in a suicide bombing at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan. The attack was carried out by Ahmad Nayeb, a Taliban operative hired by Fluor Corporation, a military contractor, as part of a program encouraging the hiring of Afghan nationals. The Army’s investigation concluded that Fluor was primarily responsible due to negligent supervision and failure to enforce proper security procedures, including allowing Nayeb to check out tools used in the bombing and to move about the base unsupervised. The plaintiff sued Fluor in federal court in South Carolina, seeking damages under state law for negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, and negligent retention of Nayeb.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to Fluor, holding that state-law tort claims were preempted under Fourth Circuit precedent whenever they arose out of combatant activities in a wartime setting. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, adopting a broad “battlefield preemption” doctrine. It reasoned that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) combatant-activities exception, which preserves government immunity for claims arising out of military combatant activities, reflected an intent to bar all tort suits against contractors connected with those activities, regardless of whether the contractor followed or violated military instructions.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case. The Court held that the Fourth Circuit erred in finding the state-law tort claims preempted where the federal government neither ordered nor authorized the challenged conduct. The Supreme Court clarified that neither the Constitution, federal statutes, nor its precedents support such broad preemption. Preemption applies only if the contractor was following government directives or if there is a significant conflict between federal interests and state law, which was not the case here. View "Hencely v. Fluor Corp." on Justia Law

A former CEO of a Delaware corporation, who also founded and controlled the company, entered into a series of employment agreements and amendments with the company’s board. These agreements provided him with substantial severance benefits, including a large special payment of restricted stock units and cash, under specific termination conditions—such as his removal from board leadership or a change in board composition. The agreements also included a forum selection clause requiring that disputes “arising out of or relating to” the contract be litigated exclusively in the Superior Court of California. After an activist hedge fund succeeded in electing new directors and the CEO lost control, he resigned and claimed entitlement to the severance and special payment. He initiated litigation in California to enforce his rights under the agreement.Meanwhile, the company’s newly reconstituted board deemed the CEO terminated for cause and filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The company sought to invalidate the employment agreements, alleging they were the product of the CEO’s breaches of fiduciary duty and that their terms improperly entrenched his control and penalized stockholders. The company argued Delaware was the proper forum based on its bylaws and the nature of the claims.The Delaware Court of Chancery reviewed the case. The court held that, because of the recently enacted Section 122(18) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the forum selection clause in a governance agreement (such as this employment agreement with a controller/stockholder) is enforceable and can validly require internal affairs and fiduciary duty claims relating to the agreement to be litigated outside Delaware. The court found the agreement was covered by Section 122(18) and that all claims “arose out of or related to” the agreement. The court granted the CEO’s motion to dismiss, holding that venue was proper only in California. View "Masimo Corporation v. Kiani" on Justia Law

Two individuals purchased Florida prepaid college tuition savings plans for their daughters in 2004 and 2006. The plans promised to cover tuition at Florida public colleges or transfer an equivalent amount to non-Florida colleges if the beneficiary chose to attend elsewhere. In 2007, the Florida Legislature authorized a new “tuition differential” fee, exempting holders of existing plans from paying that fee at Florida colleges. The Florida Prepaid College Board amended the plan contracts to specify that this new fee was not covered for out-of-state schools. Over a decade later, when both daughters chose to attend out-of-state colleges, the Board declined to transfer an amount equivalent to the tuition differential fee.The purchasers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against members of the Board, alleging that the Board’s refusal violated the Contracts and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Board from applying the statutory exemption and contract amendments to beneficiaries attending non-Florida schools. The Board moved to dismiss, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, reasoning the relief sought was prospective. However, the district court disagreed, ruling that the relief requested was essentially a demand for a refund, thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity because the relief sought would require specific performance of a contract with the state, which is not permitted under Ex parte Young and related Supreme Court precedent. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice, as the dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lavina v. Florida Prepaid College Board" on Justia Law

Pamela Whalen was injured when she tripped over a utility box in a community owned and maintained by Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC, and Greystone Nevada, LLC. Before the accident, Pamela had signed an amendment to a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) to buy a home from Lennar, which included an arbitration clause. The injury occurred during a tour of the community, not on the property she purchased. Following the accident, Pamela sued Lennar for negligence.After Pamela filed her complaint, Lennar responded with an answer and demanded a jury trial. Both parties engaged in extensive discovery over 17 months, including multiple disclosures, written discovery, and three medical examinations of Pamela at Lennar’s request. Lennar did not assert its right to arbitrate until after this lengthy discovery process. When Pamela declined to stipulate to arbitration, Lennar filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the PSA. The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, denied Lennar’s motion, determining that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in interpreting the scope of the arbitration clause, as the PSA delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. However, the Supreme Court held that Lennar had waived its right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case for 17 months before seeking arbitration. The court found this conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and prejudicial to Pamela, especially given the discovery obtained that might not have been available in arbitration. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration, albeit on the grounds of waiver rather than contract interpretation. View "LENNAR COMM. NEV., LLC VS. WHALEN" on Justia Law

Cuevas Machine Company entered into a subcontract with O’Neal Constructors for fabrication and machining work at a filtration plant owned by Calgon Carbon Corporation in Mississippi. Under the subcontract, Cuevas was to be paid after Calgon paid O’Neal. Despite nonpayment from O’Neal, Cuevas continued its work. In October 2023, Cuevas recorded two construction liens totaling over $1.2 million against Calgon’s property, but the lien documents did not explicitly state the last date labor, services, or materials were supplied—a statutory requirement. Instead, Cuevas attached invoices to the liens, which included dates, but it was unclear whether these dates satisfied the statutory requirement.After Cuevas filed suit to foreclose on the liens in Mississippi state court, Calgon removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and moved to dismiss. The district court granted Calgon’s motion, dismissing Cuevas’s complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court concluded, making an Erie guess, that the liens were unenforceable because they did not clearly specify the required “last date” in the manner demanded by Mississippi law, and found that the attached invoices did not sufficiently cure this defect.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. Finding Mississippi law ambiguous on whether attachments that do not plainly state the “last date” can satisfy the statutory requirement, the Fifth Circuit certified the following question to the Mississippi Supreme Court: whether attaching invoices that do not explicitly state the “last date labor, services or materials were supplied” satisfies the requirement under Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-405(1)(b) that a lien “specify the date the claim was due.” The Fifth Circuit did not decide the merits, instead certifying the question for authoritative resolution. View "Cuevas Machine v. Calgon Carbon" on Justia Law

The case concerns a legal dispute between two individuals after one party filed a complaint alleging various claims such as breach of contract and misrepresentation. The defendant, representing himself, responded with a cross-complaint. The central procedural issue arose when the trial court granted an anti-SLAPP motion in favor of the plaintiff, dismissed the cross-complaint with prejudice, and awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. The defendant challenged this outcome, asserting that procedural irregularities rendered the orders void, including claims about the improper filing and service of the anti-SLAPP order, as well as arguments about judicial disqualification and standing.After the trial court’s initial rulings, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, previously reviewed the matter in an earlier appeal and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the cross-complaint and the award of attorney’s fees. The court also determined that the plaintiff was entitled to additional attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, with the amount to be set on remand. On remand, the trial court awarded further fees to the plaintiff. The defendant again appealed, raising many of the same arguments previously rejected, as well as new procedural objections.In this second appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, found all of the defendant’s arguments baseless and affirmed the attorney’s fee award. The court held that the defendant’s attempt to relitigate final decisions was frivolous and imposed sanctions against him for pursuing a meritless appeal. The court further ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees for the current appeal and imposed a $10,000 sanction payable to the clerk of the court, remanding the case for the trial court to determine the precise amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. View "Zand v. Sukumar" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs held individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for which Capital One acted as custodian. Capital One chose to resign as custodian and notified the plaintiffs that, unless they directed otherwise, their IRA funds would be transferred to Inspira Financial Trust (formerly Millennium Trust Company). Plaintiffs did not act to select a different custodian or investment option. After the funds were transferred, Inspira placed them in a “sweeps” account that paid a low annual interest rate—less than Inspira’s management fees. Plaintiffs complained that both Capital One and Inspira breached their contractual duties by causing their funds to earn little or no net return, though they acknowledged Inspira is a reputable institution.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, the judge compelled arbitration of the claims against Inspira due to an arbitration agreement. The court then dismissed the claims against Capital One on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), relying in part on an exculpatory clause in the contract. Plaintiffs appealed the portion of the judgment relating to Capital One, under Rule 54(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that Capital One did not breach its contractual obligations, even when interpreting the contract as plaintiffs urged. The court found that Capital One’s actions—providing ample notice and allowing plaintiffs to choose their own custodian or investment vehicle—complied with its duties, including any obligations of good faith and fair dealing under applicable state law. The court further noted that plaintiffs were not prevented from learning about or choosing better investment options. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Capital One. View "Hewitt v Capital One Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A Canadian citizen married an American citizen in 2017. The couple lived in Canada until 2020, then moved to Hawaii, where the American spouse began working as a physician. The Canadian spouse entered the United States on a tourist visa and soon applied for lawful permanent residency. To support this application, the American spouse signed a federal Affidavit of Support, committing to maintain the non-citizen’s income above 125% of the federal poverty line. The Canadian spouse obtained permanent residency in 2021. Around that time, the marriage ended, and the American spouse moved to Michigan and filed for divorce. In 2022, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and consented divorce judgment in Michigan, in which they resolved all issues—including spousal support—and released any claims against each other.The Canadian spouse later filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that his former spouse had failed to provide the financial support required by the Affidavit of Support. The former spouse moved to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that the divorce judgment precluded the claim. The district court rejected the jurisdictional argument but agreed that claim preclusion under Michigan law barred the lawsuit, and dismissed the action.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that federal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect they would have under state law, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Act. The court ruled that Michigan claim preclusion law applied, and that the prior divorce judgment barred the new lawsuit because the claim could have been raised in the divorce proceedings. The court also rejected arguments that federal law or preemption required a different result. View "Ramgoolam v. Gupta" on Justia Law