Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

OEpic and ALi agreed to cooperate in developing a power amplifier for use in wireless networking devices and entered into a nondisclosure agreement. Wong signed the agreement on Ali’s behalf. Later, Wong formed Richwave. OEpic continued to transfer intellectual property to Wong’s team based upon assurances that Ali’s rights and obligations under the agreement had been or would be assumed by Richwave. Richwave subsequently disclaimed any need for OEpic’s services; ALi disclaimed any further obligation to OEpic. Epic was formed, became successor to all of OEpic’s interest, and sued ALi, Richwave, and Wong, alleging that ALi had transferred certain of Epic’s intellectual property to Wong and Richwave in violation of the agreements between OEpic and ALi.. The trial court granted Wong and Richwave summary judgment on the ground that a settlement agreement with ALi barred remaining causes of action. The court of appeal reversed, noting that several other provisions of the settlement agreement containing the disputed release clause are not easily reconciled its seemingly broad language. The subsequent conduct of the contracting parties also appears inconsistent with intent to extend the release to unaffiliated third parties. View "Epic Commc'ns, Inc. v. Richwave Tech., Inc." on Justia Law

Castellar Partners LLC was retained by appellees (collectively, the AMP parties) to review a “hedge fund portfolio” and the services being provided by another advisor. Castella and one of the AMP parties - AMP Capital Investors Limited (AMPCI), a subsidiary of AMP incorporated in Australia - executed an “Advisory Agreement” under which Castellar was required to provide its services regarding the fund in exchange for certain fees. The AMP parties terminated their relationship with Castellar the next year. Castellar filed suit, alleging that the AMP parties had “recklessly and willfully” misled it in order to obtain its services with regard to the fund. The district court dismissed one of Castellar’s claims, concluding that due to a forum selection clause, the claim for breach of contract was required to be litigated in New South Wales, Australia. The district court certified the dismissal of that claim as a final judgment, and Castella appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the certification was improper, as Castellar’s claims entailed “similar issues” and “related facts,” and all of the parties remain involved in the litigation before the district court. View "Castellar Partners, LLC v. AMP Ltd." on Justia Law

In the name of controlling litigation costs, a heating and air conditioning contractor, Blue Hen Mechanical, Inc. sued Christian Brothers Risk Pooling Trust as subrogee for the Little Sisters of the Poor for malicious prosecution. In January 2008, the Little Sisters of the Poor contracted with Blue Hen to maintain the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment at its nonprofit residential nursing home facility. Two months later, the nursing home's air conditioner broke, requiring the unit to be replaced at a cost of $168,740. The Little Sisters of the Poor filed suit against Blue Hen, alleging that the unit's failure was due to Blue Hen's negligence in inspecting and maintaining the equipment. After briefing and oral argument, the Superior Court determined that the Little Sisters of the Poor had not produced sufficient evidence of Blue Hen's negligence, and granted Blue Hen's motion for summary judgment. Rather than seek costs in that lawsuit, Blue Hen initiated another suit against the Little Sisters of the Poor, alleging malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Blue Hen conceded that the Little Sisters of the Poor initially had good cause to sue. But it contended that during the course of that litigation, the Little Sisters of the Poor should have realized that its suit lacked probable cause, and should have dismissed its claims against Blue Hen. The Superior Court refused to enlarge the tort of malicious prosecution, which has historically been disfavored by Delaware courts, and determined that under the tort (as Delaware court have defined it), Blue Hen failed to demonstrate that the Little Sisters of the Poor acted maliciously in bringing its action and granted summary judgment to the Little Sisters of the Poor. Blue Hen appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed: "[w]hatever the original wisdom for sanctioning the tort of malicious prosecution, we refuse to extend it to encompass claims properly brought before the court in the first instance. As important, there is no basis in the summary judgment record to support a rational jury finding that the Little Sisters of the Poor acted maliciously in the original suit, rather than in a good faith belief that Blue Hen was responsible for the serious losses that the Little Sisters of the Poor had suffered." View "Blue Hen Mechanical, Inc. v. Christian Brothers Risk Pooling Trust" on Justia Law

A homeowner sued a general contractor for allegedly shoddy and incomplete work in connection with a major home remodeling contract. The homeowner’s complaint also contained a cause of action against the general contractor’s license bond company, seeking to recover for the contractor’s having “grossly deviated” from the plans and specifications for the job. To support his action, the homeowner explicitly alleged in the complaint that the contractor was licensed at all times. The contractor cross-complained against the homeowner for unpaid work. The cross-complaint included a copy of their written contract which showed the contractor’s license number. To that, the homeowner simply filed a general denial of all allegations. When the case came to trial, the homeowner (contrary to the applicable local rule requiring plaintiffs to identify all controverted issues) did not identify licensure as a controverted issue. The contractor’s attorney did not obtain a verified certificate from the Contractors’ State License Board showing the contractor was licensed at all times during his performance. But when the contractor was about to rest his case on the cross-complaint, the homeowner’s attorney made a motion for nonsuit based on the absence of such a verified certificate as required under Business and Professions Code section 7031, subdivision (d). The trial judge deferred immediate ruling on the homeowner’s nonsuit motion. "As the contractor learned to his chagrin, it [...] takes at least six days to obtain a verified certificate from the License Board even if one drives overnight to Sacramento to pick it up in person." While the contractor was eventually able to obtain a verified certificate of licensure from the License Board, he could not do so until after the close of the trial, in which he prevailed on his claim for unpaid work from the homeowner. Because no certificate of licensure could be produced, the trial judge reluctantly granted the homeowner’s nonsuit motion, by judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). This appeal followed. After review, the Court of Appeal reversed that judgment in favor of the homeowner, with instructions to the trial judge to grant judgment in favor of the general contractor as against the homeowner. "We conclude this is one of those relatively rare cases where a party can be bound by a judicial admission made in an unverified complaint. Here, the judicial admission that the general contractor was licensed, compounded by the homeowner’s failure to comply with the local rule requiring identification of all controverted issues, rendered the question of licensure assuredly uncontroverted for purposes of section 7031. Because of the judicial admission, the rule of 'Advantec Group, Inc. v. Edwin’s Plumbing Co., Inc.' (153 Cal.App.4th 621 (2007)) does not apply." View "Womack v. Lovell" on Justia Law

The Illinois Business Brokers Act of 1995 requires brokers for the sale of businesses in the state to register. Brokerage agreements must be in writing. Promises to pay unregistered brokers for their services are unenforceable. Global Technology, apparently unaware of the statute, orally agreed with Satyam Computer Services (based in India) to act as a broker in the purchase of Bridge Strategy, an Illinois business. Global brokered the acquisition, but Satyam refused to pay. Global sued, seeking a 3% commission ($600,000). Satyam contended that Bridge had compensated Global for its services as an intermediary and that it had never promised any additional compensation. When the litigation was four years old, Satyam moved for summary judgment with a new argument: that Global is not registered under the Act. Global argued that the Act is an affirmative defense, which under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) had to appear in Satyam’s answer. Finding that Global had not suffered prejudice, the court excused Satyam’s delay and entered judgment in its favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Rule 8(c) does not provide a consequence for delay. District judges have authority to authorize a litigant to assert an affirmative defense despite its omission from the answer. View "Global Tech. & Trading, inc. v. Tech Mahindra Ltd." on Justia Law

At issue in this residential construction dispute was whether the statutory cap on exemplary damages is waived if not pleaded as an affirmative defense or avoidance. The trial court affirmed an exemplary damages award in excess of the statutory cap because Petitioner did not assert the cap until her motion for a new trial. The court of appeals affirmed the exemplary damages award, concluding that the statutory cap on exemplary damages did not apply because Petitioner failed to expressly plead the cap as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court of appeals’ judgment in relation to the exemplary cap, holding (i) the exemplary damages cap is not a matter ”constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense” and need not be affirmatively pleaded because it applies automatically when invoked and does not require proof of additional facts, and (ii) because Petitioner timely asserted the cap in her motion for new trial, the exemplary damages must be capped at $200,000; and (2) affirmed in all other respects. View "Zorilla v. Aypco Constr. II, LLC" on Justia Law

Two certificateholders in ACE Securities Corp., Home Equity Loan Trust sued DB Structured Products (DBSP) for failure to repurchase loans that purportedly did not conform to the representations and warranties of DBSP, which sponsored the transaction. The Trust later sought to substitute itself as plaintiff in place of the certificateholders. DBSP moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely, arguing that the Trust’s claims accrued as of March 28, 2006, more than six years before the Trust filed its complaint. DBSP further contended that the certificateholders did not validly commence this action and lacked standing to sue. Supreme Court denied DBSP’s motion to dismiss and held the Trust’s action to be timely.The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Trust’s cause of action against DBSP for breach of representations and warranties accrued at the point of contract execution on March 28, 2006; and (2) even assuming that the certificateholders possessed standing to sue, the two certificateholders did not validly commence this action because they failed to comply with the contractual condition precedent to suit. View "ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C. provided legal services to the defendants, a group of trusts, in connection with the financing and purchase of four hydroelectric dams. Dissatisfied with the representation they received, defendants refused to pay the full sum of fees billed by Fraser Trebilcock. To recover these unpaid fees, Fraser Trebilcock brought the underlying suit against defendants for breach of contract. Pursuant to MCR 2.403, the matter was submitted for a case evaluation, which resulted in an evaluation of $60,000 in favor of Fraser Trebilcock. Fraser Trebilcock accepted the evaluation, but defendants rejected it. The case proceeded to trial, resulting in a verdict for Fraser Trebilcock and a judgment totaling $73,501.90. Throughout the litigation of this breach-of-contract action, Fraser Trebilcock appeared through Michael Perry (a shareholder of the firm) and other lawyers affiliated with the firm. At no point did Fraser Trebilcock retain outside counsel, and there was no indication that the firm entered into a retainer agreement with its member lawyers or received or paid a bill for their services in connection with the litigation. After receiving the verdict, the parties filed posttrial motions: defendants moved for a new trial, and Fraser Trebilcock moved for case-evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O), seeking to recover, inter alia, a “reasonable attorney fee” under MCR 2.403(O)(6)(b) for the legal services performed by its member lawyers. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial, and granted Fraser Trebilcock’s motion for case-evaluation sanctions, ruling in particular that Fraser Trebilcock could recover an attorney fee as part of its sanctions. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the plaintiff law firm could recover, as case-evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O)(6)(b), a “reasonable attorney fee” for the legal services performed by its own member lawyers in connection with its suit to recover unpaid fees from defendants. Contrary to the determinations of the trial court and the Court of Appeals majority, the Supreme Court concluded it could not. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals was reversed in part, the trial court's award of fees was vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Frazier Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C. v. Boyce Trust 2350" on Justia Law

Durukan America, a Texas candy company, sued Rain Trading, an Illinois wholesaler, and its president, Canbulat, breach of contract and deceptive practices for allegedly refusing to pay for $86,000 in merchandise. To prove service, Durukan filed with the court two affidavits from a process server. After a month passed without an answer from the defendants, the district court entered a default judgment for Durukan. About a year later, after Canbulat was arrested for failing to respond to a citation to discover evidence, the defendants moved to vacate the default judgment, submitting an affidavit and records to show that they were never served. Canbulat provided corroboration that he was not at the location where service purportedly occurred. Without holding a hearing to address the dueling affidavits, the district court denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the district court should have held a hearing to resolve the factual conflict in the affidavits. View "Durukan Am., LLC v. Rain Trading, Inc." on Justia Law

Union Electric is a power company, and EIM is a trade-association-owned excess carrier for power companies. Union, as an association member, is a partial owner of EIM and is the named insured in a $100 million excess liability policy issued by EIM. Union and other power companies drafted the general form policy; Union negotiated the present policy with EIM. The policy requires that coverage disputes go through a mini-trial and arbitration. An exclusive forum-selection clause and a choice-of-law clause named New York. After failure of a Missouri reservoir caused extensive damage, Union paid to settle claims; EIM paid $68 million of the policy's $100 million limit. Union filed suit in Missouri seeking the remaining $32 million plus damages for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. The district court dismissed, based on the forum-selection clause, The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of the relationship between the mini-trial requirement, the arbitration provision, and a public policy argument. On remand, the court denied the motion to dismiss, noting that arbitration agreements in insurance contracts are unenforceable under Missouri law and that contractual choice-of-law provisions have been held unenforceable if they would allow enforcement of such an agreement. The Supreme Court, in a different case, subsequently supported enforcement of contractual forum-selection clauses "[i]n all but the most unusual cases." Relying on that case, EIM moved for a transfer stating that it would not seek enforcement of the arbitration provision. The court held that the motion was not untimely and that the forum-selection clause was enforceable. The Eighth Circuit denied a writ of prohibition or mandamus to prevent the transfer, stating that Union did not establish entitlement to extraordinary relief. View "Union Elec. Co. v. Energy Mut. Ins. Ltd." on Justia Law