Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A solo attorney and another law firm entered into contingency fee agreements with three clients for representation in workers’ compensation matters, providing for a 50/50 split of any attorney’s fees. After the solo attorney died, disputes arose over how much his estate was owed for fees from two resolved cases and a third pending case. The settlement for the first client was received shortly before the attorney’s death, while the second client’s case settled months later. The estate sued to recover its share of fees and for a declaratory judgment regarding the third case, which remained unresolved.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, found that the attorney’s contracts with the second and third clients expired at his death, and that the estate had been fully paid for the first two cases. The court also awarded prejudgment interest to the estate for delayed payment on the first client’s case and ordered the estate to pay prejudgment interest to the law firm for the disputed portion of the second client’s fees that had been deposited with the court. The estate and the law firm both appealed aspects of the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the ruling that the contingency fee agreements for the second and third clients terminated upon the attorney’s death. However, it reversed the finding that the estate had been fully paid for services rendered in the second client’s case, holding that the estate could recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered before death, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. The Supreme Court also reversed the award of prejudgment interest to the law firm for the deposited funds and directed recalculation of prejudgment interest owed to the estate for the first client’s case based on the timing of unconditional tender and full payment. View "Groves v. Goodsell & Oviatt LLP" on Justia Law

A dispute arose following a failed real estate transaction involving the sale of a hotel property in Warwick, Rhode Island. The property was to be sold by Shiva, LLC, of which Jay Patel was the registered agent, to LandingPartners LLC under a Purchase and Sale and Discounted Pay-Off Agreement. Centreville Bank held a mortgage on the property, which was in default. When Shiva, Airport Hospitality (another entity linked to Patel), and Patel failed to respond to an earlier lawsuit brought by LandingPartners, the Superior Court entered a default judgment against them, ordering specific performance of their obligations under the agreement and appointing a commissioner to facilitate the closing. Afterward, LandingPartners and Centreville Bank reached a consent order with new terms for the sale and discharged the mortgage, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.Shortly after the dismissal of the first case, Patel filed a new lawsuit in the Washington County Superior Court against LandingPartners, Centreville, and a related entity, 1850 Post Road Owner LLC. He alleged violations of the agreement, fraud, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata because they arose from the same transaction addressed in the prior litigation. The Superior Court agreed, finding that the parties or their privies were the same, the issues arose from the same transaction, and there was a final judgment in the first action.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Court held that res judicata barred Patel’s claims, as all issues now raised were or could have been raised in the initial suit, and the new claims concerned the same transaction. The dismissal of Patel’s complaint with prejudice was therefore upheld. View "Jay Patel v. LandingPartners LLC et al." on Justia Law

Two American companies, Declan Flight, Inc. and Right Rudder Aviation, LLC (RRA), developed successful sales and distribution relationships with Pipistrel, a Slovenian aircraft manufacturer, through contracts signed in 2020 and 2021. Their contracts contained forum-selection clauses specifying Slovenia as the forum for disputes. In 2022, Textron, Inc., a large U.S. aerospace company, acquired Pipistrel through its subsidiary Textron eAviation, Inc. Shortly after the acquisition, Textron and eAviation orchestrated the termination of Declan’s and RRA’s contracts. RRA also lost a separate sales contract with Mesa Airlines after Textron and eAviation allegedly interfered with that business relationship.Declan and RRA sued Textron and eAviation in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging tortious interference with the Pipistrel contracts and with the Mesa Airlines contract. The district court dismissed the claims related to the Pipistrel contracts (Counts I and II) for forum non conveniens, holding that the forum-selection clauses could be enforced by Textron and eAviation—nonsignatories—under the federal doctrine of equitable estoppel, thus requiring litigation to proceed in Slovenia. The district court also found that personal jurisdiction existed for the Mesa Airlines claim (Count III), but dismissed it for failure to state a claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Counts I and II. The court held that the applicability of the forum-selection clauses is governed by Slovenian law, not federal common law, and that Slovenian law does not permit nonsignatories to invoke these clauses. Thus, the district court erred in applying the modified forum non conveniens rule from Atlantic Marine. The Eleventh Circuit also reversed the finding of personal jurisdiction over Textron and eAviation as to Count III, remanding all claims for further proceedings. View "Declan Flight, Inc. v. Textron eAviation, Inc." on Justia Law

A holding company and its North Carolina insurance agency subsidiary, which function as intermediaries between clients and insurance carriers, experienced significant employee dissatisfaction after a shift in commission structure and a pay freeze in early 2020. This led to multiple employees, including both producers and account managers, leaving over several months to join a direct competitor, a new agency formed by a former employee. The departing employees had signed agreements with non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses. During their departures, some employees forwarded company documents to personal accounts, and, after litigation began, engaged in extensive deletion of electronic evidence.Previously, in Guilford County Superior Court, the plaintiffs had sued a former producer, with most claims dismissed except for breach of employment agreement, and that suit was later settled. In the current litigation, after discovery, both sides sought partial summary judgment in the North Carolina Business Court (Superior Court for Complex Business Cases). The Business Court granted summary judgment in part for both parties, including a grant of adverse inference against defendants for spoliation of evidence, but did not specify how that inference would apply to each claim.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the interlocutory appeal. It affirmed the adverse inference ruling but remanded for the Business Court to clarify its specific application. The Court reversed the Business Court’s summary judgment that two client lists could not be trade secrets, holding there were genuine issues of fact. It clarified the standard for misappropriation of trade secrets under state law, requiring evidence of a specific opportunity to acquire trade secrets without authorization. The Court remanded claims related to trade secrets, enforcement of non-solicitation provisions (pending factual findings on the scope of the employer and affiliates), and certain computer fraud claims for further proceedings. Summary judgment for defendants on unjust enrichment was affirmed, and the Business Court was directed to issue a written opinion for claims it disposed of in a summary order. The disposition was thus affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rel. Ins., Inc. v. Pilot Risk Mgmt. Consulting, LLC" on Justia Law

An engineer who had worked for more than two decades at a manufacturing company resigned after a demotion and accepted a leadership position at a competitor. As he was leaving, the company discovered that he had potentially printed several documents containing confidential information about its products. Although forensic analysis could not confirm that he actually printed these documents, the company concluded he had taken trade secrets and sued him and his new employer, alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The company sought a preliminary injunction to prevent disclosure of the alleged secrets and to restrict the engineer’s work with the competitor.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the preliminary injunction. The district court ruled that the company failed to meet its burden by not providing “clear and convincing” evidence for each of the four required factors for a preliminary injunction: likelihood of success on the merits, risk of irreparable harm, risk of harm to others, and the public interest. The court treated each factor as a separate prerequisite, each requiring clear and convincing proof.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, clarifying that the district court had committed a legal error. The appellate court held that the correct approach is to weigh all four preliminary injunction factors together in a sliding-scale analysis, not to require clear and convincing evidence for each factor individually. It explained that a heightened standard of proof is not mandated unless required by statute, the Constitution, or in rare cases involving unusually coercive government action, none of which applied here. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration under the appropriate standard. View "PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on allegations of breach of contract and related claims involving a credit card account that the defendant allegedly opened with a national bank. The bank claimed that the defendant opened the account, used it for purchases and cash advances, and then defaulted by failing to make the required payments, leaving a substantial unpaid balance. The defendant denied the material allegations in her answer to the complaint.After the initial pleadings, the bank moved for summary judgment in the Kent County Superior Court, asserting that there were no material facts in dispute and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Importantly, the bank’s motion was not initially accompanied by any supporting affidavits or exhibits. The defendant filed an affidavit in opposition, pointing out the lack of any supporting affidavit from the bank. On the day of the hearing, the bank submitted an affidavit by emailing it to the hearing justice’s clerk, rather than filing and serving it in accordance with procedural rules. Despite the defendant’s objections to this late submission and improper service, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, relying on the belated affidavit. Final judgment was entered, and the defendant appealed.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Supreme Court found that the bank’s failure to timely file and serve the affidavit, as required by Rule 6(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, prejudiced the defendant’s ability to respond. The Supreme Court held that the hearing justice erred in relying on the untimely affidavit and in not postponing the hearing. The judgment of the Superior Court was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. View "American Express National Bank v. Perretta" on Justia Law

An Oklahoma company, formed to acquire mineral rights in Appalachia, alleged that two Texas parties failed to convey certain West Virginia mineral interests as contractually agreed. The Oklahoma company, which included non-Texas owners and participants, had funded the purchase of these rights, but a number of mineral deeds were recorded in the name of the Texas seller rather than the buyer. As a result, royalties from those mineral rights were paid to the seller. The Oklahoma plaintiff sought to compel the Texas defendants to reform the deeds, perform their contractual obligations, declare the plaintiff’s entitlement to the royalties, and enjoin the defendants from transferring the disputed interests.The 141st District Court in Tarrant County, Texas, denied the defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction and ultimately granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, awarding specific performance, deed reformation, declaratory relief, an injunction, and monetary relief. The court found it had jurisdiction over the parties and the contract, even though the mineral rights were located in West Virginia. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas reversed, holding that Texas courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the suit’s gravamen was the adjudication of title to foreign (West Virginia) real property.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the matter and disagreed with the appellate court’s application of the so-called “gist” rule. The Supreme Court held that Texas courts with personal jurisdiction over the parties may issue in personam judgments concerning contractual obligations to convey out-of-state real property, as long as the judgment binds only the parties and does not purport to establish or alter title to the property by the court’s own force. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and remanded for consideration of remaining issues. View "BRAXTON MINERALS III, LLC v. BAUER" on Justia Law

A married couple, both active-duty military members, separated after nearly two decades of marriage and executed a notarized separation agreement in 2020 while stationed in Okinawa. The agreement provided that the wife would receive $1,500 per month in maintenance until divorce, 20% of the husband’s military retirement pay upon his retirement, and be named as beneficiary of his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The wife later initiated a divorce in South Dakota, and the parties submitted a stipulation and settlement agreement incorporating key provisions from their separation. The divorce decree was filed in February 2021. Over time, the husband failed to make some required maintenance payments and, after retiring, did not pay the wife her portion of his retirement nor complete the SBP paperwork. The wife sought contempt and modifications, while the husband argued compliance was impossible due to deficiencies in the decree.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Charles Mix County, declined to hold the husband in contempt, finding the divorce decree’s orders too vague for enforcement. The court denied modification of the property division, found no fraud or coercion, and refused to vacate the decree. It reduced the wife’s retirement share from 20% to 16.1% using a coverture formula, ordered payment of $5,000 in arrears plus 8% interest, and instructed the husband to effectuate the SBP. Both parties appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that reducing the wife’s retirement share below the agreed 20% was error, as was applying an 8% rather than the statutory 10% interest rate to arrears. The court remanded for correction of those issues, but affirmed the denial of contempt, refusal to vacate the decree, and the exclusion of additional payments for stimulus or tax refunds. The court also found no due process violations or abuse of discretion in declining to take sworn testimony. View "Shevling v. Major" on Justia Law

The case concerns the United States Postal Service’s contract for canine explosive-detection services. The USPS awarded the contract to K2 Solutions, Inc. (“K2”), while Global K9 Protection Group (“Global K9”) and Michael Stapleton Associates, Ltd. were unsuccessful bidders. Global K9 filed a bid protest in the United States Court of Federal Claims, initially challenging the evaluation of its bid but not directly alleging misconduct by K2. K2 received notice of the original complaint and chose not to intervene, believing the government would adequately defend its interests.The Claims Court case evolved when Global K9 filed an amended complaint under seal, adding new allegations that K2 had materially misrepresented its capabilities during the bidding process. Contrary to court rules and the protective order, Global K9 did not file a redacted public version of the amended complaint, and K2 did not receive notice of these new allegations. The Claims Court ultimately found that K2 had made a material misrepresentation and issued an injunction disqualifying K2 from contract performance. After learning of the injunction, K2 moved to intervene, but by then, the USPS had terminated K2’s contract for default, relying in part on the court’s findings.K2 appealed the denial of its motion to intervene. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held the case was not moot because K2’s interests in contesting the misrepresentation finding remained live in separate proceedings. However, the appellate court affirmed the Claims Court’s decision that K2’s motion to intervene was untimely, as K2 could have sought intervention upon learning of the amended complaint’s existence. The Federal Circuit also found that K2 was not a necessary party because it failed to act promptly to protect its interests. The judgment of the Claims Court was affirmed. View "GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION GROUP, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

A company providing paratransit and microtransit services under contract with a regional public transportation authority subcontracted another company to supply vehicles and drivers. After several months, the subcontractor terminated the agreement and brought suit against the transportation company and the authority, asserting claims including breach of contract, quantum meruit, tortious interference, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The fraud claim centered on alleged false representations made to induce the subcontract.The trial court (Texas District Court) ruled on a motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, which allows dismissal if pleadings show no legal or factual basis for relief. The court dismissed the fraud and other tort claims against all defendants, as well as the breach of contract claim against the transportation authority and its primary contractor. It limited potential contract damages as to the contractor’s subsidiary and severed and abated remaining claims. The subcontractor appealed the dismissal of its claims against the main transportation company.The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed in part, finding that the breach of contract and fraud claims against the main transportation company had a basis in law and that its statutory immunity under Texas Transportation Code § 452.056(d) was not conclusively established. The Supreme Court of Texas, reviewing only the fraud claim, held that the statutory immunity did apply. Because the pleadings showed the transportation company was contractually performing the authority’s function, and the authority itself would be immune from a fraud claim (an intentional tort), the company was likewise immune from liability for fraud. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the fraud claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on any remaining claims. View "MV TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. GDS TRANSPORT, LLC" on Justia Law