Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

This case stemmed from Ward Farms' purchase of Enerbase Cooperative Resource's tractor at a third-party auction sale. Michael Ward, a partner of Ward Farms, attended an auction sale, and bid on the tractor. Shortly after the sale, Ward Farms discovered the tractor required significant repairs. At Ward Farms' request, Enerbase inspected the tractor and estimated the repair costs as ranging from $19,550 to $31,430. Subsequently, Ward Farms sued Enerbase alleging fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, and breach of express and implied warranties. Ward Farms sought alternative remedies of rescission or damages. Ward Farms appealed the district court judgment denying its motion to amend its complaint and granting a summary judgment motion in favor of Enerbase. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ward Farms' motion to amend, and the district court did not err in granting Enerbase's summary judgment motion because Ward Farms did not raise an issue of material fact regarding its claim. View "Ward Farms v. Enerbase Cooperative Resource" on Justia Law

Appellant sued Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (SFB) for breach of contract. SFB answered, alleging that Appellant’s claims were spurious and were made for an improper purpose. The circuit court granted summary judgment to SFB, concluding that Appellant had filed a frivolous claim against SFB without proper and reasonable investigation and imposed sanctions in the form of awarding attorney’s fees to SFB. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees because he did not prevail on the issue of his entitlement to the payment of a sum he sought; and (2) because SFB failed to comply with the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 11 in seeking Rule 11 sanctions, the circuit court erred in imposing Rule 11 sanctions. View "Swindle v. State" on Justia Law

The underlying lawsuit in this case, "Retailers’ Credit Association of Grass Valley, Inc. v. Leonard," was filed by real party in interest Retailers’ Credit Association of Grass Valley, Inc., and alleged petitioner Kathleen Leonard breached a contract by failing to pay $2,340.41 for medical services provided by additional real party in interest, Dignity Health, which was doing business as Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital. Retailers’ Credit Association was the local collection agency providing collection services for Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital. Leonard filed a pro. per. cross-complaint against Retailers’ Credit Association, alleging a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 by negligent disclosure of private medical information (i.e. “date of medical visits, medical record number, [and] account numbers”). On the front page of her cross-complaint, Leonard checked the box on the form that stated, “ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE ($25,000 or less).” In the complaint itself, Leonard checked the box requesting “compensatory damages” for “limited civil cases.” She also requested injunctive relief in the form of a court order requiring Retailers’ Credit Association to remove the allegedly private information from its complaint. Leonard later filed a pro. per. motion to amend her cross-complaint. In the caption of the motion, she stated the amendment was to “NAME SIERRA NEVADA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AS A CROSS-DEFENDANT and TO REMOVE THIS CASE TO A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION.” The memorandum of points and authorities alleged that the documents attached to the complaint contained her medical record number and were not necessary for the prosecution of the collection claim and at the very least could have been redacted to protect her privacy. When she reviewed the complaint, she “noticed the attachment to the complaint contained [her] medical records and medical record number” and that the complaint with the attachment had been filed publically at the courthouse. The trial court denied Leonard’s motion to amend the cross-complaint and “[t]ransfer to [u]nlimited [j]urisdiction” without prejudice. Leonard “failed to attach the proposed [a]mended [c]ross-[c]omplaint to the motion” and as a result, the court was “unable to determine what the proposed changes include.” The court was “unable to determine if an additional [c]ross-[d]efendant [wa]s sought to be named or if damages sought exceed $25,000. Thus, th[e] Court [w]as unable to determine if [Leonard] [wa]s entitled to the relief sought.” This case involves how a limited civil case (here a cross-complaint) gets reclassified as an unlimited civil case. After review, the Court of Appeal held that where Leonard filed, through counsel, an amended cross-complaint that added a cross-defendant and added causes of action that increased the amount in controversy to over $25,000 and tried twice to pay the court clerk the reclassification fee, the trial court was required to reclassify the case. Here, the trial court refused to reclassify the case and went on to deny Leonard’s later-filed motion for reclassification, a motion that was unnecessary because the trial court should have already reclassified the case (and in any event, the motion was the inappropriate vehicle by which to change the classification here). The Court therefore granted Leonard’s petition and issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to reclassify the case upon Leonard paying the reclassification fee. View "Leonard v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

This case arose from a dispute over a construction contract entered into between Contractors Edge, Inc. and the City of Mankato. Contractors Edge sued the City alleging, as relevant to this appeal, breach of contract and violation of the Prompt Payment Act. The district court dismissed the breach of contract claim in an order (the October 2012 order) that concluded, “let judgment be entered accordingly.” Neither party asked for a certification of final judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. The parties subsequently settled the remaining Prompt Payment Act claim. The district court entered final judgment in January 2014. Contractors Edge appealed, challenging the October 2012 order. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as time barred, holding (1) regardless of whether the district court properly certified the October 2012 order, the partial judgment was immediately appealable, and (2) Contractors Edge’s appeal time had expired. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion in certifying the October 2012 order as a final partial judgment under Rule 54.02; and (2) when a district court abuses the discretion given in Rule 54.02 to certify an order as a final partial judgment, the resulting judgment is not final and is not immediately appealable. View "Contractors Edge, Inc. v. City of Mankato" on Justia Law

Kentucky Spirit Health Care Plan, Inc. brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it had a right to terminate its Medicaid managed care contract with the Finance and Administration Cabinet prior to the expiration of the contract without penalty. The trial court entered partial summary judgment in favor of the Cabinet. Both parties appealed. While the appeals were pending, the circuit court stayed Kentucky Spirit’s pre-trial discovery efforts relating to its rights under the Medicaid contract until resolution of the partial summary judgment appeals. The Court of Appeals granted Kentucky Spirit’s petition for a writ of prohibition against the circuit court judge prohibiting the judge from enforcing the order imposing the stay of discovery. The Supreme Court vacated the writ and remanded for entry of an order denying Kentucky Spirit’s petition for a writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by temporarily staying discovery, as a stay of discovery was appropriate pending resolution of the threshold issues currently on appeal. View "Commonwealth v. Hon. Wingate" on Justia Law

BP and the Economic Property Damages Class entered into a Settlement Agreement in connection with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. At issue is the district court's order approving the Final Rules Governing Discretionary Court Review of Appeal Determinations for claims processed through the Settlement Program. After determining that the court had jurisdiction over the appeal under the collateral order doctrine, the court concluded that the parties preserved their right to appeal from the district court under the settlement agreement. The court followed its sister circuits' decisions in similar cases involving consent decrees to hold that, where a settlement agreement does not resolve claims itself but instead establishes a mechanism pursuant to which the district court will resolve claims, parties must expressly waive what is otherwise a right to appeal from claim determination decisions by a district court. In this case, the parties have preserved their right to appeal. Finally, the court concluded that the Final Rules violate the right for parties to appeal claim determinations to this court where the district court failed to provide for the docketing of its orders regarding requests for review. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Lake Eugenie Land v. BP" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a contract dispute between Amerijet and Zero Gravity where Amerijet operated parabolic flights for Zero Gravity and provided maintenance services. On appeal, Amerijet challenged the district court's anti-suit injunction and petitioned for a writ of mandamus setting aside the district court's order reopening this case after the parties purportedly settled their dispute. Amerijet argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it erred in setting aside Amerijet's voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court affirmed the injunction and denied the petition, concluding that a pre-removal answer meeting the requirements of state law suffices to preclude voluntary dismissal under Rule 41. View "Amerijet Int'l v. Zero Gravity Corp." on Justia Law

Attorney Novak represented Kelly between 2007 and 2012. The two executed a contingency attorney fee agreement that granted Novak lien rights over any settlement Kelly received. In 2011, Novak filed a probate petition which alleged Kelly was a pretermitted spouse of Teitler and negotiated a considerable settlement. The probate court approved the settlement which awarded Kelly a substantial interest in the Dana Teitler Trust. Kelly died. Novak filed suit to enforce the attorney lien in the 2007 fee agreement. The probate court denied the petition, holding that the proper procedure to recover fees was by claim against Kelly’s estate under section 9000; plaintiff was required to file a creditor’s claim within one year of Kelly’s death; the statute of limitations barred the claim; and section 5000(a), which provides a nonprobate transfer, was inapplicable. The court of appeal reversed. Novak had not forfeited a claim under section 9391, that he was an equitable lienholder and did not need to file a creditor’s claim in probate. An assignment provision in the settlement agreement in the event of Kelly’s death did not destroy Novak’s pre-existing attorney fee lien rights. View "Novak v. Fay" on Justia Law

Chivalry contracted with Rehtmeyer to develop and manufacture a board game. Chivalry paid Rehtmeyer over $128,000, but the relationship deteriorated. Rehtmeyer never produced the game. Chivalry sued for breach of contract and won a judgment of $168,331.59, plus $621.25 in costs in Illinois state court. Rehtmeyer never paid. Chivalry issued a citation to discover assets. At the citation examination, Rehtmeyer testified that she had no ownership interest in any real estate; securities, stocks, bonds or similar assets; office or electronic equipment; nor a personal checking or savings account. Because Rehtmeryer had not produced required documents, Chivalry continued the citation and filed a motion to compel production, which was granted. She did not comply. The state court twice more ordered her to produce all the documents required by the citation. Months later, Chivalry sought a rule to show cause. The day before the scheduled hearing, Rehtmeyer filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Chivalry appeared to object to the discharge of the debt owed to it, claiming that Rehtmeyer had concealed her assets and income during the citation proceedings. The bankruptcy court denied Chivalry’s objection. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that Rehtmeyer concealed assets with the requisite intent. View "Jacobs v. Marcus-Rehtmeyer" on Justia Law

Benihana America obtained a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration of a dispute arising under its license agreement with Benihana of Tokyo, prohibiting Tokyo from: selling unauthorized food items at the restaurant it operates under the license agreement; using certain trademarks in connection with that restaurant in a manner not approved by the license agreement; and arguing to the arbitral panel, if it rules that Tokyo breached the license agreement, that Tokyo should be given additional time to cure any defaults. The Second Circuit affirmed with respect to the menu offering and trademark use injunctions. The court reasonably concluded that each of the relevant factors favored Benihana America. The court reversed the prohibition on arguing to the arbitral panel for an extended cure period. When a dispute is properly before an arbitrator, a court should not interfere with the arbitral process on the ground that, in its view of the merits, a particular remedy would not be warranted. Benihana America may challenge an arbitrator’s decision in court only after it has been issued. It may not subvert its agreement to arbitrate by obtaining an advance judicial determination that there are no grounds for the arbitrator to grant a particular remedy. View "Benihana, Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC" on Justia Law