Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2013, Panther, a marketing and brand management company, signed a contract with IndyCar, to purchase access to coveted space in the “Fan Village” at IndyCar racing events, an area where sponsors set up displays to attract fans. The Army National Guard had been Panther’s team sponsor, 2008-2013. After it signed the 2013 contract, Panther learned that another team, RLL, intended to provide the Guard with Fan Village space. Believing that RLL had conspired with IndyCar and the Docupak agency to persuade the Guard to sponsor RLL instead of Panther, Panther brought suit in state court against RLL, Docupak, IndyCar, and active‐duty Guard member Metzler, who acted as the liaison between the Guard and Panther. The defendants removed the case to federal court, where the United States was substituted as a party for Metzler, 28 U.S.C. 2679(d); Panther filed an amended complaint that did not name either Metzler or the United States. The district court dismissed the complaint against RLL, IndyCar, and Docupak and found the United States’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction moot. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; the basis for federal jurisdiction disappeared when Panther amended its complaint. View "Panther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioners Interstate Freight USA, Inc., Interstate Specialized, Inc., Interstate Freight, Inc. (collectively referred to as "the Interstate companies"), Charles Browning, and Donald Raughton, Sr., filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Baldwin Circuit Court to vacate its order denying their motion to transfer the underlying action to the St. Clair Circuit Court and to enter an order granting the motion. The plaintiff in the underlying action, Kevin Vogler, was hired as a vice president/general manager for Interstate Specialized and Interstate Freight USA. Vogler sued, alleging that: in December 2013, he was working for another company and had become interested in acquiring the transportation branch of the Interstate companies; that he had entered into negotiations with Browning, the president of Interstate Freight USA and Interstate Specialized, and Raughton, a business consultant for the Interstate companies; that Browning and Raughton were acting on behalf of the Interstate companies; that the parties had agreed that "Vogler could acquire a minority interest in the trucking business over a two year period and, after two years of employment with the Interstate companies, would have the option of buying out the interest of Defendant Browning"; that Browning and Raughton had made representations to him regarding his salary and benefits; and that, based on those representations, Vogler left his previous employment and entered into separate employment contracts with Interstate Specialized and Interstate Freight USA. In early 2014, however, the businesses were shut down for "financial reasons," and Vogler's position was terminated. Petitioners moved to dismiss Vogler's complaint, or in the alternative, for a change of venue. After review, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Baldwin County was the proper venue, but that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying the motion for change of venue on the "interest-of-justice" prong of the forum non conveniens statute. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition for the writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to transfer this case to the St. Clair Circuit Court. View "Ex parte Interstate Freight USA, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeal for the First Circuit certified two questions of state law to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The questions arose in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding, and concerned the power and effect of an affidavit of an attorney, executed pursuant to G.L. c. 183 section 5B, in relation to a mortgage containing a defective certificate of acknowledgement. The first question centered on whether, pursuant to the statute, a recorded mortgage omitting the name of the mortgagor, a material defect of that mortgage. The second question centered on whether the recording of that allegedly defective mortgages provides constructive notice of the mortgage to a bona fide purchaser, either independently or in combination with the mortgage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court answered both questions "yes." View "Bank of America, N.A. v. Casey" on Justia Law

Baskin-Robbins, a Delaware LLC, franchises ice cream stores. Alpenrose, a dairy products manufacturer incorporated in Oregon, is headquartered in Portland. In 1965, the two executed a territorial franchise agreement. Baskin-Robbins then had its principal place of business in California. Negotiations occurred in California. Between 1973 and 1985, the parties amended the Agreement three times; Baskin-Robbins remained in California. All material discussions concerning the amendments took place in Oregon. Around 1998 Baskin-Robbins' headquarters moved to Massachusetts. In 2001 and 2007, Alpenrose sent Baskin-Robbins, in Massachusetts, formal notice of its election to renew. In 2013, Alpenrose informed Baskin-Robbins that it did not intend to renew. The parties began negotiating Alpenrose's transition out of the arrangement. Negotiations stalled. Alpenrose wrote to Baskin-Robbins, stating that it wished to "revoke" its decision not to renew and requested another six-year extension, citing the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code 19.100.180(2)(i). Baskin-Robbins rejected Alpenrose's demands for renewal or compensation, then sought a declaratory judgment in the District of Massachusetts. That court dismissed for want of in personam jurisdiction, stating that "nothing in [the parties'] history . . . suggests that Alpenrose intended to purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting business within Massachusetts." The First Circuit reversed, “the assertion of jurisdiction satisfies both the relatedness and purposeful availment criteria, and the Gestalt factors do not counsel otherwise.” View "Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc." on Justia Law

Cashman sued, alleging Cardi provided defective cofferdams for construction of the Sakonnet River Bridge. Cofferdams are temporary watertight enclosures that are pumped dry to expose the bottom of a body of water so that construction can occur. During discovery, Cashman sought, and Cardi refused to produce, computer models and draft reports that had been “considered by” its testifying engineering expert to determine “certain stress and loads that are going to be placed on certain points on this cofferdam,” including models “that [the expert] created which [he] may not have relied on but certainly would’ve considered” and draft reports. Cardi argued that Rule 26(b)(4)(A) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure does not allow discovery of materials “considered by” an expert in forming an expert opinion. The hearing justice concluded that he did not have the authority to compel production of the material. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, after considering interpretations of the corresponding Federal Rule. The state rule is “clear and unambiguous” and is confined to discovery through interrogatories or deposition. It does not provide for the disclosure of documents. View "Cashman Equip. Corp., Inc. v. Cardi Corp., Inc." on Justia Law

Susan Lundberg, as Trustee of the Gabriel J. Brown Trust, appealed the grant of summary judgment quieting title in a tract of land to Greg Holverson, directing the Trust to convey the land to Holverson, and dismissing the Trust's counterclaims for rescission or for damages for breach of contract. In May 1980, Holverson owed a balance on a contract for deed. Robert Lundberg, as original Trustee, released 5.09 acres from the contract and deeded that land to Holverson. Holverson executed a mortgage on the 5.09 acres as additional security for the contract for deed and the single indebtedness of $39,018.40 under the same repayment terms as the contract for deed. Holverson made sporadic payments under the amended contract for deed and mortgage. According to Susan Lundberg, she wrote Holverson multiple times asking him to make required payments. In December 2012, the Trust initiated proceedings to cancel the contract for deed and served Holverson with a notice of default. Holverson agreed to pay the balance due under the contract for deed and mortgage. According to Susan Lundberg, she reviewed records at the Burleigh County Recorder's Office and learned Holverson had obtained and satisfied several other mortgages on the land while making sporadic payments to the Trust since 1978. Susan Lundberg claimed she discovered Holverson had executed five mortgages on the land and satisfied three of the mortgages between 1978 and 1997, and he had obtained six mortgages and satisfied seven mortgages after 1997. She claimed she also discovered Holverson's stated reason for amending the contract for deed and mortgage on November 10, 1997, was false, because the record in the recorder's office reflected he had obtained the Capital Credit Union mortgage several days before Holverson's contract for deed and mortgage with the Trust were amended on November 10, 1997. Holverson made a timely tender of a certified check for the balance due under the contract for deed and mortgage, and the Trust refused to accept the check and execute a warranty deed for the land. Holverson sued the Trust to quiet title and determine ownership of the land. Holverson generally denied the Trust's allegations of fraud and misrepresentation and affirmatively pled accord and satisfaction, estoppel, laches, payment, release, statute of limitations, and waiver. The district court granted Holverson's motion for summary judgment. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the Trust's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Holverson v. Lundberg" on Justia Law

GSS appealed the district court’s dismissal of its second attempt to confirm a $44 million arbitral award entered against the Port Authority for breach of a construction contract. GSS first tried to confirm the award, but the district court found that it had no personal jurisdiction over the Port Authority. Then GSS filed its second petition, also naming the Republic of Liberia, which owns the Port Authority, as respondents. The district court again dismissed GSS’s petition, finding that issue preclusion barred relitigating its personal jurisdiction over the Port Authority and that GSS failed to demonstrate that Liberia was liable for the Port Authority’s alleged breach. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims against Liberia for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1330 et seq.; affirmed the district court's dismissal of GSS's petition against the Port Authority on sovereign immunities grounds; and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing GSS's petition before allowing jurisdictional discovery. View "GSS Group Ltd. v. Republic of Liberia" on Justia Law

Jeff Lokey and Mike Irwin were business partners in two Wyoming businesses. After the parties dissolved their shared business interests, Irwin filed suit against Lokey, alleging that Lokey had materially breached the terms of the agreement. When Lokey did not timely file an answer the district court entered a default judgment against Lokey that included a provision allowing the parties ten days to file objections to the judgment. Lokey filed an objection, which the district court denied. Lokey appealed, challenging the court’s denial of his objections. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because Lokey did not timely appeal an appealable order; but (2) the Court had jurisdiction to award, and Irwin was entitled to recover, reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result of this appeal. View "Lokey v. Irwin" on Justia Law

This appeal grew out of a conflict between the business models of Sprint Nextel Corporation and The Middle Man, Inc. Middle Man bought mobile telephones, including Sprint’s, and tries to resell them at a profit. Sprint brought a breach of contract lawsuit against Middle Man, and Middle Man counterclaimed seeking a declaration that its business model did not violate the contract that accompanied the purchase of Sprint telephones. The district court held as a matter of law that the contract unambiguously prohibited Middle Man from selling new mobile telephones purchased from Sprint regardless of whether they were active on Sprint’s network. In light of this holding, the district court: (1) granted judgment on the pleadings to Sprint on Middle Man’s counterclaim for a declaratory judgment; and (2) granted summary judgment to Sprint on its breach of contract claim, awarding Sprint nominal damages of $1. Middle Man appealed, contending that the entry of judgment on Sprint’s claim and Middle Man’s counterclaim was made in error and that the district court should have awarded judgment to Middle Man on both claims. The Tenth Circuit, after review of the contract at issue here, determined parts were ambiguous, and that the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that it was not. As such, Sprint was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. The district court's judgment was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Middle Man" on Justia Law

This was Defendants’ fourth appeal from a lawsuit in which Plaintiff obtained a $23 million judgment based on an an indemnification clause in an agreement. Plaintiff sought to secure payment on that judgment by bringing suit against Defendants. Defendants then began a series of attempts to evade payment to Plaintiff and to elude the power of the courts. As relevant to this appeal, Defendants violated a preliminary injunction, resulting in a civil contempt order entered by the district court. The contempt order included an escalating fines provision. The First Circuit affirmed the contempt order and remanded with directions to amend the sanction order so that the fines cease to accrue at some total amount. Defendants appealed the revised contempt order issued by the district court, arguing that the underlying preliminary injunction expired by its own terms so the district court could no longer coerce compliance with it. Defendants failed to raise this argument at any time prior to the present appeal. The First Circuit denied the appeal, holding that Defendants’ belated challenge was implicitly foreclosed by the Court’s prior decisions. View "AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG" on Justia Law