Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Several researchers at the University of California received multi-year federal grants from agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In April 2025, these agencies terminated the research grants by issuing form letters, citing shifts in agency priorities and referencing multiple Executive Orders issued by the President, some of which explicitly aimed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and related initiatives from the federal government. The affected researchers alleged these terminations resulted in lost funding, harm to their reputations, and disruption to their projects, with no ready alternative sources of support.The researchers filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting constitutional and statutory claims, including violations of the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court provisionally certified two classes: one consisting of researchers whose grants were terminated by form letter without grant-specific explanation (the Form Termination Class), and another whose grants were terminated specifically due to the DEI Executive Orders (the DEI Termination Class). The district court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the reinstatement of the grants for both classes. The government appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs had established Article III standing. It reversed the preliminary injunction for the Form Termination Class, concluding that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction over their APA claim because the claim was essentially contractual and thus barred by the Tucker Act. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction for the DEI Termination Class, finding that the class was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim because the grant terminations were based on viewpoint discrimination. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "THAKUR V. TRUMP" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Olson leased a Jeep Grand Cherokee from a car dealership under a lease agreement that included an arbitration provision and a delegation clause, which assigned questions about the scope of arbitration to an arbitrator. FCA US, LLC, the manufacturer of the Jeep, was not a signatory to the lease agreement. Olson later became the named plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit against FCA, alleging defects in the vehicle’s headrest system. FCA, not being a party to the lease, sought to compel Olson to arbitrate the dispute based on the arbitration agreement between Olson and the dealership.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied FCA’s motion to compel arbitration. The district court found that FCA, as a non-signatory to the lease agreement, could not enforce the arbitration provision or its delegation clause against Olson. The court concluded that the arbitration agreement applied only to Olson and the dealership (including its employees, agents, successors, or assigns), and FCA did not qualify under any of those categories. Additionally, the court rejected FCA’s argument that it could use equitable estoppel to compel arbitration, holding that none of Olson’s claims were sufficiently intertwined with the lease agreement to justify such an exception under California law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that FCA could not compel Olson to arbitrate because FCA was not a party to the arbitration agreement and no applicable exception—such as equitable estoppel—applied. The court clarified that, under both federal and California law, only parties to an arbitration agreement (or those qualifying under specific, limited exceptions) may enforce it. The court also rejected FCA’s reliance on Supreme Court precedent, finding it inapplicable to non-signatories in these circumstances. View "OLSON V. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law

A consumer purchased a licorice product manufactured by a Minnesota company, relying on packaging that stated the product was “Naturally Flavored,” “Natural Strawberry & Raspberry Flavored Licorice,” and “Free of . . . Artificial Colors & Flavors.” The consumer later learned, through laboratory testing, that the product contained DL malic acid, which is an artificial flavor created from petrochemical sources. The consumer alleged that this ingredient rendered the product’s labeling false or misleading, and filed a putative class action in California, asserting claims for violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court found that the complaint failed to plead with sufficient particularity that the malic acid was artificial, thus not meeting the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court also held that the plaintiff did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the product’s labeling, reasoning that the labels did not explicitly state the product was “all natural” or “100% natural,” and that the ingredients list disclosed both natural and artificial ingredients.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the complaint satisfied Rule 9(b) because it identified the specifics of the alleged fraud and provided details about the laboratory testing. The court also held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer could be misled by the product’s claim to be free of artificial flavors when it allegedly contained an artificial flavor. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "TRAMMELL V. KLN ENTERPRISES, INC." on Justia Law

Several individuals who own royalty interests in the Kansas Hugoton Gas Field brought a putative class action against two energy companies. Their claims are based on an alleged breach of a 2008 class action settlement agreement, which had resolved earlier disputes about underpayment of royalties by one of the companies. The 2008 settlement required limits on certain deductions from royalty payments and specified that its terms would bind successors, assigns, and related entities. In 2014, one defendant acquired assets from the other and continued making royalty payments. Plaintiffs allege the acquiring company violated the settlement by taking improper deductions after the acquisition.The plaintiffs initially sought to enforce the settlement in Kansas state court, but the District Court of Stevens County determined the judgment had become dormant and unenforceable. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling, and while the appeal was pending, they filed this federal class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss but later denied class certification. The district court found that the proposed class was not ascertainable because identifying class members would require individualized title review and that other Rule 23 requirements were not satisfied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court clarified that, under its recent precedent, class ascertainability does not require administrative feasibility—only an objectively and clearly defined class. The court found the proposed class ascertainable, that common questions predominated, and that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23 requirements. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of class certification and remanded with instructions to certify the putative class. View "Rider v. Oxy USA" on Justia Law

A group of branded gasoline retailers, known as the Old Jericho Plaintiffs, operated gas stations and accepted Visa and Mastercard payment cards during a specified period. Following a long-running federal antitrust class action alleging that Visa and Mastercard imposed unlawfully high interchange fees, a $5.6 billion settlement was reached in 2019 with a class defined as all entities accepting Visa- or Mastercard-branded cards in the United States from January 1, 2004, to January 24, 2019. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs did not opt out of this settlement. However, after the opt-out period ended, they filed a separate class action asserting state-law antitrust claims for damages based on the same alleged conduct, contending that their suppliers were the direct payors of the fees and thus should be the proper class members.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were members of the original settlement class and that the settlement agreement barred their new claims. The district court found the term “accepted” in the settlement ambiguous but, after reviewing extrinsic evidence—such as contracts and how transactions were conducted—concluded that the retailers themselves, not their suppliers, “accepted” payment cards within the meaning of the agreement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that its prior decision in Fikes Wholesale, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. did not require class membership to be determined solely by identifying the “direct payor.” The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual determination that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were intended to be class members. Additionally, it held that the claims brought by these plaintiffs were validly released in the settlement because they rested on the same factual predicate as the released claims and the plaintiffs had been adequately represented. View "In Re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Two individuals purchased Florida prepaid college tuition savings plans for their daughters in 2004 and 2006. The plans promised to cover tuition at Florida public colleges or transfer an equivalent amount to non-Florida colleges if the beneficiary chose to attend elsewhere. In 2007, the Florida Legislature authorized a new “tuition differential” fee, exempting holders of existing plans from paying that fee at Florida colleges. The Florida Prepaid College Board amended the plan contracts to specify that this new fee was not covered for out-of-state schools. Over a decade later, when both daughters chose to attend out-of-state colleges, the Board declined to transfer an amount equivalent to the tuition differential fee.The purchasers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against members of the Board, alleging that the Board’s refusal violated the Contracts and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Board from applying the statutory exemption and contract amendments to beneficiaries attending non-Florida schools. The Board moved to dismiss, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, reasoning the relief sought was prospective. However, the district court disagreed, ruling that the relief requested was essentially a demand for a refund, thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity because the relief sought would require specific performance of a contract with the state, which is not permitted under Ex parte Young and related Supreme Court precedent. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice, as the dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lavina v. Florida Prepaid College Board" on Justia Law

A Delaware corporation specializing in antenna measurement systems was majority-owned by a parent company, which controlled the board and imposed a services agreement that disproportionately allocated expenses to the subsidiary. An investment fund, having previously rejected buyout offers, became a vocal minority stockholder. In 2018, after a controversial squeeze-out merger at $3.30 per share—approved without effective minority protections—a third-party expressed interest in buying the parent at a much higher valuation, but later withdrew due to concerns over the parent’s transfer pricing practices. The merger closed at a valuation much lower than that suggested by the later private equity investment.A minority stockholder initially filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty related to the merger. The court denied a motion to dismiss, and the original plaintiff’s counsel negotiated a proposed $825,000 settlement. The investment fund objected, sought to replace the lead plaintiff and counsel, and ultimately succeeded after the original settlement was rejected and the fund posted security to protect other stockholders’ interests. The fund, with new counsel, filed an amended complaint, pursued broader discovery, and advanced new damages theories, including contesting the services agreement and relying on the arm’s-length valuation from the private equity transaction. The litigation efforts included multiple discovery motions, expert reports, and defeating dismissal attempts, culminating in a mediated settlement for $17.85 million—21.64 times the original settlement and reflecting a 235% premium over the deal price.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in the present opinion, held that the investment fund, as lead plaintiff, was entitled to an incentive award of $730,000. The court found that the award was justified based on the fund’s considerable time, effort, and resources expended, the significant benefit obtained for the class, and the absence of problematic incentives or conflicts. View "In re Orbit/FR, Inc. Stockholders Litig." on Justia Law

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with a car dealership to lease a Jeep Grand Cherokee. The lease included an arbitration agreement containing a delegation clause, which specified that disputes about the scope of the arbitration agreement would be decided in arbitration. Later, the plaintiff filed a federal class action lawsuit against the vehicle’s manufacturer, alleging defects in the headrest. The manufacturer, however, was not a party to the lease agreement and did not claim to be an employee, agent, successor, or assign of the dealership.After the lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the manufacturer moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the delegation clause required an arbitrator—not the court—to decide whether the manufacturer could enforce the arbitration agreement. In the alternative, the manufacturer asserted that either the plain language of the agreement or the doctrine of equitable estoppel entitled it to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion, finding that the manufacturer could not enforce the arbitration agreement because it was not a party to the contract and none of the exceptions allowing enforcement by a non-signatory applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court held that, absent a relevant exception, a non-party to an arbitration agreement cannot enforce the agreement’s terms against a signatory. It found that the language of the arbitration agreement did not cover disputes with the manufacturer, and under California law, the manufacturer could not use equitable estoppel to compel arbitration because the plaintiff’s claims were not founded in or intertwined with the lease agreement. The court’s disposition was to affirm the district court’s order. View "OLSON V. FCA US, LLC" on Justia Law

Two Illinois residents obtained online loans of $600 each from a lender operating under the laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, with interest rates approaching 500% per year. The loan agreements included an arbitration clause, which delegated to the arbitrator all questions including the enforceability and formation of the agreement, specifying that such issues would be determined under “tribal law and applicable federal law.” At the time the loans were issued, the referenced tribal law did not exist.After receiving the loans, the borrowers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Illinois consumer-protection statutes and federal laws. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the loan agreements. The district court denied the motion, finding that the arbitration and delegation provisions were unenforceable because they effectively forced the plaintiffs to waive their substantive rights under Illinois law, applying the “prospective waiver” doctrine.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no mutual assent to the arbitration and delegation provisions. The court determined that, at the time of contracting, the specified tribal law did not exist, and federal law does not supply substantive contract-formation rules. Because the contract’s governing law provision referred to a body of law that was nonexistent and subject to unilateral creation by the defendants’ affiliate, there was no meeting of the minds as to an essential term. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the absence of mutual assent rendered the arbitration and delegation provisions unenforceable and affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Harris v W6LS, Inc." on Justia Law

A former employee brought a class action lawsuit against her former employer, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and other employment-related statutes. After the complaint was filed, the employer entered into approximately 954 individual settlement agreements with other employees, providing cash payments in exchange for releases of claims. The plaintiff did not sign such an agreement but moved for class certification and later sought to invalidate the individual settlements on the grounds of fraud and coercion, arguing the employer misrepresented the litigation’s status and the scope of the settlements.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County partially granted the motion, ruling that the individual settlement agreements were voidable due to fraud or duress and ordered that a curative notice be sent to affected employees. The court’s notice advised that employees could rescind their agreements and join the class action, but did not require immediate repayment of settlement funds to the employer. The employer objected, arguing the notice should have informed employees that they might be required to return the settlement money if they rescinded and the employer ultimately prevailed in the litigation. The trial court declined to include this language, instead following certain federal cases that allowed offsetting the settlement amount against any recovery but did not require repayment before judgment.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case on a writ. The court held that under California Civil Code sections 1689, 1691, and 1693, employees who rescind their settlement agreements may be required to repay the consideration they received, but repayment can be delayed until final judgment unless the employer shows substantial prejudice from delay. The court also found the trial court retains equitable authority to adjust repayment at judgment under section 1692. The appellate court directed the trial court to reconsider the curative notice in accordance with these principles. Each side was ordered to bear their own costs on appeal. View "The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law