Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In this case, Four Thirteen, LLC filed a complaint against three corporate entities and several individuals, including Joshua Wearmouth, Larry Stephens, Edmond X. Moriniere, Ronald G. Meyers, and David C. Norton. The complaint alleged that Wearmouth and Stephens solicited funds from Four Thirteen for a business venture involving Brazilian carbon credits, which turned out to be fraudulent. Four Thirteen claimed that the corporate entities did not own the carbon credits and that Wearmouth and Stephens made numerous misrepresentations. The complaint included claims of breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and other related allegations.The District Court of Laramie County reviewed the case and rejected the affidavits of non-involvement filed by Moriniere, Meyers, and Norton, who sought dismissal from the suit. The court found that there were factual issues regarding their involvement in the alleged fraud. Additionally, the district court imposed discovery sanctions and entered a default judgment against all defendants, including the individual appellants, for failing to comply with discovery orders.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision regarding the affidavits of non-involvement. The Supreme Court determined that the district court correctly found that there were factual disputes about the involvement of Moriniere, Meyers, and Norton, which precluded their dismissal from the case.However, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision to impose discovery sanctions against the individual appellants. The Supreme Court found that the appellants were not given proper notice that they were subject to sanctions under Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) and that there was no evidence they violated any prior discovery order. The court held that the sanctions against the individual appellants were not justified and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Stephensv. Four Thirteen, LLC" on Justia Law

CorpCar Services Houston, Ltd. (CorpCar) entered into a franchise license agreement with Carey Licensing, Inc., and Carey International, Inc. (collectively Carey) to operate a chauffeur-driven service under the Carey brand in Houston, Texas. In 2015, CorpCar was found liable for punitive damages for creating a racially hostile work environment, which led Carey to terminate the franchise agreement in 2016. CorpCar argued that the termination was wrongful because it did not materially breach the agreement and, even if it had, Carey did not provide an opportunity to cure the violation as required by the agreement.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to Carey, finding that CorpCar’s breach was incurable as a matter of law and that CorpCar had an opportunity to cure but failed to do so. The court also denied CorpCar’s cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that issues of material fact remained for the jury to decide.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and agreed with the lower court that CorpCar’s breach was material. However, the appellate court disagreed with the finding that the breach was incurable as a matter of law. The court held that the language of the franchise agreement was clear and precluded the application of the incurable breach doctrine. The court also found that there was a dispute of material fact as to whether Carey repudiated the franchise agreement, effectively denying CorpCar an opportunity to cure.The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment to Carey and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court instructed that a jury must decide whether Carey repudiated the agreement, whether CorpCar had cured or could have cured its breach, and whether affording an opportunity to cure would have been futile. The denial of CorpCar’s cross-motion for summary judgment was affirmed. View "CorpCar Services Houston, LTD v. Carey Licensing, Inc." on Justia Law

Casey and Janae Ruppert entered into a contract to purchase ranch property from Judith Merrill. Before closing, Merrill indicated she would not proceed with the sale. The Rupperts filed a complaint seeking specific performance and damages. The district court found Merrill breached the contract and denied her affirmative defenses. It awarded the Rupperts damages and attorneys’ fees but declined to order specific performance. The Rupperts appealed the denial of specific performance, and Merrill cross-appealed the attorneys’ fees award.The District Court of Laramie County found Merrill breached the contract but declined to order specific performance, citing Merrill’s personal circumstances and misunderstandings about the contract. It awarded the Rupperts $22,342 in damages and granted their motion for attorneys’ fees without explanation, awarding $55,258.50 in fees and $3,082.60 in costs.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the district court abused its discretion by denying specific performance. The court noted the district court’s findings contradicted its decision, as it found the contract valid, the price reasonable, and no undue influence or unconscionability. The Supreme Court held that specific performance was the appropriate remedy given the circumstances and the equities involved.Regarding attorneys’ fees, the Supreme Court agreed with both parties that the district court erred by awarding fees without explanation. The Supreme Court independently assessed the reasonableness of the fees, concluding that the rates charged were excessive for the local market. It reduced the hourly rate to $250, resulting in a total fee award of $28,425.00, plus the previously awarded costs of $3,082.60.The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the district court’s orders denying specific performance and awarding attorneys’ fees, remanding the case for entry of an order consistent with its opinion. View "Merrill v. Ruppert" on Justia Law

Fitzgerald Fruit Farms, LLC leased land from Whitaker Farms, LLC for a peach orchard. After being locked out of the leased premises, Fitzgerald Farms sued Whitaker Farms for damages. A jury awarded compensatory damages to Fitzgerald Farms. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part but reversed the trial court’s ruling that Fitzgerald Farms could not seek punitive damages. On remand, a second jury awarded punitive damages to Fitzgerald Farms. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that statements made during a settlement negotiation by Whitaker Farms’s Chief Operating Officer to Fitzgerald Farms’s owner were properly admitted under OCGA § 24-4-408.The trial court initially ruled that Fitzgerald Farms could not seek punitive damages, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. On remand, the trial court conducted a second jury trial focused on punitive damages, where the jury awarded $500,000 in punitive damages to Fitzgerald Farms. Whitaker Farms appealed again, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting statements made during a settlement negotiation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, stating that the statements were admissible to show Whitaker’s intent and state of mind.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and vacated the Court of Appeals’s judgment. The Supreme Court determined that the statements made during the settlement negotiation were inadmissible under OCGA § 24-4-408. The Court concluded that the statements were offered to prove Whitaker Farms’s liability for punitive damages, which is not permissible under the statute. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the admission of the statements was harmful and if a new trial on punitive damages is required. View "Whitaker Farms, LLC v. Fitzgerald Fruit Farms, LLC" on Justia Law

Govind Vaghashia and other plaintiffs appealed a trial court order denying their motion to vacate a settlement agreement with Prashant and Mita Vaghashia. The settlement involved a $35 million payment from the Govind Parties to Prashant and Mita, with specific terms about collateral and property interests. Disputes arose over the interpretation and execution of the agreement, leading to motions to enforce the settlement by both parties. The trial court enforced the agreement largely in favor of Prashant and Mita, rejecting the Govind Parties' interpretations.The trial court found that the Govind Parties were judicially estopped from challenging the settlement agreement after previously moving to enforce it. The court concluded that the Govind Parties' current position that the agreement was unenforceable was inconsistent with their earlier position that it was enforceable. The court also found that the Govind Parties had not taken their initial position due to ignorance, fraud, or mistake.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the elements of judicial estoppel were met: the Govind Parties had taken two totally inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings, and the trial court had accepted their initial position that the settlement was enforceable. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's application of judicial estoppel and upheld the denial of the motion to vacate the settlement agreement. The court also denied Prashant and Mita's motion to dismiss the appeal based on the disentitlement doctrine, finding insufficient evidence of non-compliance with trial court orders by the Govind Parties. View "Vaghashia v. Vaghashia" on Justia Law

Vernon K. Stensvad, the plaintiff, owns a small cattle herd and entered into a Grazing Lease Contract with Newman Ayers Ranch, Inc. in July 2022. The contract stipulated that Stensvad would graze his cattle on Ayers Ranch's property for a fee, with higher winter rates to be determined. Stensvad paid the fees for July and August but later agreed orally to perform labor in exchange for reduced fees. Disputes arose over the quality of Stensvad's work and the amount owed. In October 2023, Ayers Ranch issued an agister’s lien for $78,662.50, seizing Stensvad’s herd. Stensvad sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the sale of his cattle under the lien.The Seventh Judicial District Court in Prairie County granted Stensvad’s application for a preliminary injunction, ordering the cattle to be moved to a third-party feed lot. Ayers Ranch appealed, arguing that the District Court failed to consider all four factors required for a preliminary injunction under Montana law and that a preliminary injunction was not an appropriate remedy for challenging an agister’s lien.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the District Court manifestly abused its discretion by not addressing all four factors of the preliminary injunction standard. The Supreme Court clarified that under the revised standard, a party must satisfy all four factors: likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. The Court adopted the "serious questions" test from the Ninth Circuit, allowing for flexibility in evaluating these factors. The case was remanded for the District Court to make supplemental findings consistent with this standard. The Supreme Court also held that a preliminary injunction is an appropriate remedy to challenge an agister’s lien and that Stensvad did not have an adequate remedy at law. View "Stensvad v. Newman Ayers Ranch" on Justia Law

The case involves Meisam Sedighi, who sought reimbursement from his employer, Schnackel Engineers, Inc., for $3,000 he paid to an immigration attorney for the preparation and filing of a permanent labor certification application. Sedighi argued that under 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b), Schnackel Engineers was responsible for these costs. Schnackel Engineers contended that Sedighi was to pursue his green card at his own expense, as stipulated in his employment contract, and that it did not agree to pay for the certification application.The small claims court of the county court for Douglas County ruled in favor of Sedighi, finding that Schnackel Engineers was responsible for the attorney fees under 20 C.F.R. § 656.12(b). Schnackel Engineers appealed to the district court for Douglas County, which reversed the small claims court's decision. The district court found that the employment contract controlled the parties' obligations and that Sedighi was responsible for his own green card expenses. It concluded that the Michigan immigration attorney represented Sedighi, not Schnackel Engineers.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its appellate review. The Supreme Court noted that the small claims court's judgment was supported by competent evidence showing that Schnackel Engineers actively participated in the preparation and filing of the permanent labor certification application. The Supreme Court held that the district court should have presumed that the small claims court found the Michigan immigration attorney represented both Sedighi and Schnackel Engineers. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and directed it to reinstate the small claims court's judgment in favor of Sedighi. View "Sedighi v. Schnackel Engineers" on Justia Law

The case involves disputes over horse consignment contracts between Ramsey and Hickstead Farms and Dapple Stud, LLC. Ramsey and Hickstead entered into agreements with Dapple Stud to sell their horses at auction, with Dapple Stud acting as the consigning agent. The sales proceeds were deposited into Dapple Sales' checking account, managed by Mike Akers, who allegedly misappropriated the funds, resulting in Ramsey and Hickstead not receiving their due proceeds.The Fayette Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dapple Stud and Dapple Sales, dismissing Ramsey and Hickstead's breach of contract claims. The court also required Ramsey and Hickstead to pay restitution to Dapple Stud for amounts previously paid. Additionally, the court denied Ramsey and Hickstead's motions to file third-party complaints against Akers and Dapple Sales, citing the statute of limitations.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and found that Ramsey and Hickstead had valid consignment contracts with Dapple Stud, which were breached when the sales proceeds were not remitted. The court held that Akers, as the manager of Dapple Stud, had the authority to bind the company in these transactions. The court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Dapple Stud and Dapple Sales and the restitution orders, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine the amounts owed to Ramsey and Hickstead, including interest.However, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to bar the third-party complaints against Akers and Dapple Sales due to the statute of limitations. The court also upheld the dismissal of the conversion and theft claims against Dapple Sales. The case was remanded to the Fayette Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "RAMSEY V. DAPPLE STUD, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, who operate restaurants under franchise agreements, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition based on advice from their legal counsel. This led to the franchisor terminating the franchise agreements. The plaintiffs then sued their lawyers and law firms for legal malpractice and breach of written contracts for legal services, alleging that the lawyers' advice constituted malpractice. The defendants moved to dismiss both claims, arguing they were barred by a four-year statute of limitation under OCGA § 9-3-25.The trial court dismissed the legal-malpractice claims but denied the motion to dismiss the breach-of-contract claims. Later, it granted summary judgment for a subset of defendants, ruling that the breach-of-contract claims were also barred by the four-year statute of limitation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the legal-malpractice claims and concluded that the breach-of-contract claims were duplicative and should be dismissed as well.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case to determine which statute of limitation applies to breach-of-contract-for-legal-services claims and whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing these claims as duplicative. The Supreme Court concluded that such claims could be governed by either a six-year statute of limitation under OCGA § 9-3-24 or a four-year statute under OCGA § 9-3-25, depending on whether the breach arose directly from a written contract. The Court also held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the breach-of-contract claims as duplicative without applying the proper motion-to-dismiss standard.The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, emphasizing that plaintiffs can pursue alternative theories of relief based on the same conduct. View "TITSHAW v. GEER" on Justia Law

In November 2014, the plaintiff purchased a recreational vehicle (RV) from a dealership, with the defendant bank financing the purchase. The sales contract inaccurately reflected the downpayment as $19,100 in cash instead of $1,000 in cash and $18,100 in trade-in value. The plaintiff later discovered issues with the RV and filed a lawsuit in February 2017, alleging violations of the Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA) due to the incorrect downpayment disclosure.The Superior Court of Fresno County reviewed the case and concluded that the four-year statute of limitations for written contracts applied, rather than the one-year statute for statutory penalties. The court granted summary adjudication in favor of the plaintiff against the dealership for violating the ASFA, and the dealership's liability was extended to the bank under the Federal Trade Commission’s holder rule. The court entered judgment requiring the bank to accept the return of the RV and pay the plaintiff $42,263.64.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and determined that the rescission and restitution remedy under the ASFA is a penalty. The court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations for actions upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture applied. The court noted that the ASFA imposes strict liability without regard to actual damages or fault, and the legislative history indicated the remedy was intended as a penalty. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Pompey v. Bank of Stockton" on Justia Law