Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Next Millennium Telecom Co. (Nextel), a Saudi Arabian corporation, was contracted by the Saudi Arabian government to install an emergency siren system. Nextel paid American Signal Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation, approximately $11 million for the sirens and related components. After installation, the sirens failed to operate correctly, and American Signal refused to repair or replace the defective parts or refund the payment. Consequently, Nextel sued American Signal in federal court for breach of contract, among other claims.The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The litigation was marked by Nextel's uncooperative behavior, which hindered the discovery process. At the final pretrial conference, the district court noted the lack of progress on key factual issues and ordered Nextel to take specific steps, including obtaining local counsel, conferring with American Signal, and filing a plan for testing the sirens and securing visas for witnesses. Nextel's failure to comply with these orders led the district court to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. The appellate court found that Nextel's conduct, including its failure to facilitate inspections, schedule depositions, adhere to local rules, and comply with the court's pretrial order, justified the dismissal. The court emphasized that the responsibility to move the case forward rested with Nextel, and its pattern of delay and non-compliance supported the district court's decision. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal and did not address Nextel's argument regarding remote testimony for its witnesses. View "Next Millennium Telecom Co. v. American Signal Corporation" on Justia Law

Benchmark Property Remodeling, LLC, a construction company, performed remodeling work on a building owned by Grandmothers, Inc., which was leased to the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR). The work was based on quotes finalized between KDOR and Benchmark, and a "Third Amendment to Lease" between KDOR and Grandmothers. Benchmark completed the work and invoiced Grandmothers and KDOR. KDOR paid Grandmothers, but Grandmothers only partially paid Benchmark, withholding some amounts for various reasons. Benchmark sued Grandmothers, KDOR, and others for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other claims.The Shawnee District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Grandmothers on several claims, concluding there was insufficient evidence of a contract between Benchmark and Grandmothers. The court also granted KDOR's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Benchmark then dismissed its remaining claims without prejudice and appealed the partial summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings.The Kansas Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that appellate jurisdiction was proper because Benchmark did not refile its dismissed claims, making the district court's judgment final. The panel reversed the district court's entry of judgment on the pleadings for KDOR, noting significant factual issues regarding the parties' intent. The panel also reversed the district court's summary judgment for Grandmothers, finding that the evidence could support a finding of a contract between Benchmark and Grandmothers.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the district court's partial summary judgment became final with the dismissal of the remaining claims, thus granting appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the existence of a contract, making summary judgment inappropriate. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Benchmark Property Remodeling v. Grandmothers, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a contract dispute between Kenneth E. Salamone and RUFSTR Racing, LLC (Plaintiffs) and Douglas Marine Corporation (Defendant). Plaintiffs contracted with Douglas Marine to purchase a custom-made race boat and trailer for $542,117, making payments totaling $501,500. Douglas Marine failed to deliver the boat on time, leading Plaintiffs to cancel the contract. Douglas Marine sold the boat and engines for $375,000 but only remitted $50,000 to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, seeking damages.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York held a jury trial, which found in favor of Plaintiffs, awarding them $131,171 in damages. Plaintiffs moved to alter the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), arguing the jury's calculation was fundamentally erroneous and should be increased to $451,500. The district court agreed, ruling that the jury's verdict constituted a fundamental error and increased the damages to $451,500. Douglas Marine appealed, arguing the district court erred in increasing the damages and in not instructing the jury on a mitigation-of-damages defense. They also challenged the court's personal jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It found merit in Douglas Marine's argument that the district court improperly increased the damages award, ruling that the jury's verdict did not constitute fundamental error. The appellate court reversed the amended judgment to the extent it increased the damages and remanded the case for entry of a second amended judgment consistent with the jury's original award of $131,171. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Douglas Marine's post-judgment motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Salamone v. Douglas Marine Corp." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the allocation of attorneys' fees from a $1.51 billion settlement between Syngenta AG and numerous plaintiffs. The settlement arose after Syngenta failed to obtain regulatory approval for its genetically modified corn seeds to be imported into China, leading to significant financial losses for American corn farmers and producers. As part of the settlement, $503 million was allocated for attorneys' fees, which was divided into four pools: three common benefit pools and one for individually retained private attorneys (IRPAs). The IRPA pool was allocated $60 million.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas initially approved the allocation scheme and the modification of contingent-fee contracts, capping IRPA fees at approximately 10% of their clients' recovery. The Objecting Firms, including Hossley-Embry and Byrd/Shields, challenged this allocation and the modification of their fee contracts. They filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that the settlement claims process was more complex than anticipated, requiring additional work. The district court denied these motions, and the Objecting Firms appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously affirmed the district court's allocation scheme and the modification of the contingent-fee contracts in In re Syngenta I. The current appeal focuses on the district court's June 2021 IRPA Pool Allocation Order, which adopted the special master's recommendations on the allocation of the $60 million within the IRPA pool. The Objecting Firms argued that the district court's allocation was insufficient and that their due process rights were violated.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's June 2021 IRPA Pool Allocation Order, concluding that the Objecting Firms failed to raise any arguments within the scope of the appeal, which was limited to the allocation of the IRPA pool itself. The court also dismissed the contingent cross-appeal by MDL Co-Lead Counsel as moot, given the affirmation of the district court's order. View "In re: SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION" on Justia Law

Anthony Cordero, a student at Montana State University (MSU) during the Spring 2020 semester, sued MSU for prorated reimbursement of his tuition and fees after the university transitioned to online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cordero claimed that MSU breached an express contract to provide in-person education and services. He also asserted claims for breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, due process violation, violation of the takings clause, and inverse condemnation.The First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County dismissed four of Cordero’s six claims, including the implied contract and unjust enrichment claims, under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court granted summary judgment in favor of MSU on the remaining claims, including the express contract claim, and denied Cordero’s motion to certify the case as a class action. The court found that Cordero did not identify a specific, bargained-for promise by MSU to provide in-person education and that he had no compensable property interest in the tuition and fees paid.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that there was an express contract between Cordero and MSU, but it did not include a specific promise to provide in-person education. The court found that MSU had the right to change its regulations and policies, including transitioning to online learning during emergencies. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the implied contract and unjust enrichment claims, noting that an implied contract cannot exist when an express contract is present. The court concluded that MSU did not breach its contractual duties regarding tuition and fees, as it maintained campus facilities and services to the extent possible during the pandemic. View "Cordero v. Montana State University" on Justia Law

A group of drivers sued their employer, Owl, Inc., for breach of contract and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They claimed they were not paid the correct hourly rate under their employment contract or overtime wages under the FLSA. The district court granted summary judgment for Owl on the breach of contract claim and limited the damages available to the drivers for the FLSA claim. The parties then settled the FLSA claim for $350,000, and the drivers appealed the district court’s rulings.The district court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, reasoning that the drivers had agreed to a specific hourly rate, and enforcing a higher rate under the Service Contract Act (SCA) would create a private right of action under the SCA, which does not exist. The court also granted Owl’s motion in limine, limiting the FLSA damages to one-and-a-half times the rate the drivers were actually paid. The drivers settled the FLSA claim but reserved the right to appeal the district court’s rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the district court entered a final judgment on all claims. The court also held that the drivers had standing to challenge the district court’s rulings despite the settlement. On the merits, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, holding that the SCA wage was not incorporated into the employment contracts. However, it reversed the district court’s ruling on the FLSA claim, holding that the “regular rate” under the FLSA should include the prevailing wage required by the SCA. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Perez v. Owl, Inc." on Justia Law

Daniel Graff purchased a life insurance policy from Brighthouse Life Insurance Company for his father, with Graff as the beneficiary. Over the years, Graff paid more in premiums than the policy's death benefit. He sued Brighthouse, claiming the policy violated Minnesota's Readability of Insurance Policies Act (RIPA) and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and also sought recovery for unjust enrichment. Brighthouse removed the case to federal court, which dismissed Graff's claims for failing to state a claim.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Graff's complaint with prejudice. The court found that the RIPA did not provide a private cause of action, the implied-covenant claim was untimely, and Graff could not recover under unjust enrichment because a valid contract governed the parties' relationship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the RIPA does not create a private cause of action, as enforcement authority is vested exclusively in the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce. The court also determined that Graff's implied-covenant claim could not proceed because it was based on a statute that does not provide a private remedy. Lastly, the court upheld the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, noting that equitable remedies are unavailable when a valid contract governs the parties' rights, and Brighthouse was entitled to the premiums under the policy. View "Daniel Graff v. Brighthouse Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Thompson Corrugated Systems, Inc. (TCS) entered into an oral agreement in 2004 to act as the North American sales representative for Engico, S.r.l., an Italian manufacturer of corrugated box machinery. TCS was to receive an 8% commission on sales, later modified to a sliding scale in 2012. Despite low sales, TCS procured two significant sales for Engico in 2005 and 2017. In 2016, Engico attempted to terminate the agreement due to low sales, but TCS resisted, citing market conditions. The parties renegotiated in 2018, agreeing that TCS would remain the representative until 2021 and continue to receive commissions. However, disputes arose over commissions for sales made in 2019 and 2020, leading TCS to sue Engico for breach of contract and other state law claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted partial summary judgment in favor of TCS, finding the 2004 oral agreement valid and enforceable. The court determined that the essential terms of the agreement, including the commission structure, territory, and services, were sufficiently definite. The court also found that the agreement was terminable at will under Illinois law. The remaining claims were left to the jury, which found Engico liable for breach of contract and awarded TCS damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that the 2004 oral agreement contained sufficiently definite terms and that the Statute of Frauds did not bar enforcement of the 2018 agreement. The court concluded that the essential terms of the agreement were clear and that the deposition testimony satisfied the Statute of Frauds’ writing requirement. Thus, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Thompson Corrugated Systems, Inc. v. Engico S.r.l." on Justia Law

Balboa Capital Corporation, a financing company, entered into agreements with various physicians across multiple states to finance their participation in a telehealth program run by America’s Medical Home Team (MHT). MHT, however, was operating a Ponzi scheme and failed to deliver the promised services and equipment. Balboa financed the physicians' participation by paying MHT directly and then sought repayment from the physicians through monthly payment agreements (MPAs) or installment payment agreements (IPAs). The physicians, unaware of the full terms and believing they could withdraw without financial obligations, defaulted on their payments after MHT's collapse.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas consolidated multiple collection actions filed by Balboa against the physicians. The court struck an evidentiary exhibit that combined the payment agreements with invoices, ruling that the invoices were not properly authenticated and constituted impermissible hearsay. The court then granted summary judgment in favor of the physicians, finding that the payment agreements alone did not constitute valid contracts as they lacked essential terms such as the total amount financed and the cost of financing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court affirmed the decision to strike the exhibit, agreeing that the invoices were not properly authenticated and did not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court also affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the payment agreements, even if considered together with the invoices, did not form enforceable contracts under California law due to the absence of material terms. Consequently, Balboa’s claims for breach of contract and breach of guarantee failed as a matter of law. View "Balboa Capital v. Okoji Home Visits MHT, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The North Central Montana Regional Water Authority (the Authority) was created in 2000 through an interlocal agreement among several municipalities and county water and sewer districts. The Town of Kevin, a small municipality with fewer than 175 residents, did not sign the original agreement but signed several later documents attempting to join the Authority. The Town later sought to sever ties with the Authority, which resisted these attempts. On May 29, 2020, the Town sued the Authority, seeking a declaratory judgment under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) that it was not, and never had been, a member of the Authority, and also sought attorney fees.The Twelfth Judicial District Court held a bench trial and issued an order on November 10, 2022, declaring that the Town was not a member of the Authority and granting other relief. Subsequently, the Town filed a motion for attorney fees under the UDJA. On March 30, 2023, the District Court found that equitable factors supported awarding attorney fees to the Town, noting the significant disparity in resources between the Town and the Authority. The Authority appealed this order.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the UDJA provides a legal basis for awarding attorney fees between governmental entities when appropriate. The court found that the parties were not similarly situated, as the Town had significantly fewer resources compared to the Authority. The court also applied the "tangible parameters test" and concluded that the Authority possessed what the Town sought, it was necessary for the Town to seek a declaration, and the declaratory relief was necessary to change the status quo. Therefore, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the Town. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of attorney fees to the Town. View "Town of Kevin v. North Central Montana Regional Water Authority" on Justia Law