Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2011, the Town of Middletown issued an invitation for bids on a drainage improvement project. Two contractors submitted bids, including HK&S Construction Holding Corp., which provided the lowest bid. Woodard & Curran, Inc. recommended against awarding HK&S the project and in favor of negotiating a contract with the second bidder. The town counsel concluded that HK&S’s bid was non-responsive and awarded the contract to the second bidder. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Town and Woodard & Curran alleging, among other claims, that the Town violated state and local law when it denied the contract award for the project. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in disposing of HK&S’s claims against the Town in summary judgment where HK&S failed to submit a responsive bid; and (2) HK&S’s claim of negligence against Woodard & Curran also failed. View "HK&S Constr. Holding Corp. v. Dible" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a life insurance agent with the New Life Insurance Company for more than forty years. In 2009, Plaintiff was informed that his agent contract would be terminated. In 2012 and 2014, Plaintiff filed two separate suits against New York Life, alleging, in addition to several common-law claims, age discrimination under both Massachusetts law and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The U.S. District Court of the District of Massachusetts consolidated the two cases. The district court then granted summary judgment for New York Life on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s state law age discrimination claims were time barred; (2) no reasonable jury could conclude that New York Life engaged in age discrimination under federal law in terminating his agent contract; and (3) no reasonable jury could conclude that the termination breached Plaintiff’s contract with New York Life or violated any of Plaintiff’s common law rights. View "Santangelo v. New York Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Professional Massage Training Center (PMTC) filed suit against the Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC) after ACCSC denied PMTC’s application for re-accreditation. The district court entered judgment in favor of PMTC, finding that ACCSC had violated the school’s due process rights. The court awarded the school more than $400,000 in damages and ordered ACCSC to fully reinstate its accreditation. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court erred in conducting a de novo approach to the accreditation process; (2) judged by the correct standard of review, the accreditation decision was well supported and not arbitrary or capricious; and (3) the district court correctly dismissed PMTC’s state law claims for breach of contract, negligence, and tortious interference. Remanded. View "Prof’l Massage Training v. Accreditation Alliance of Career Schs." on Justia Law

The Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED) and Ghost Player, LLC executed a contract for tax credits under which Ghost Player believed it would receive certain tax credits for a documentary film it produced. CH Investors, LLC was a third-party beneficiary to the contract. The IDED declined to issue the contracted tax credit for some of the investments and expenditures of Ghost Player. Ghost Player and CH Investors subsequently filed a breach of contract action against the IDED. The district court dismissed the action on the grounds that Ghost Player failed to exhaust its remedies under the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) was without authority to hear the case because the IDED actions in this case required Ghost Player to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to filing a case in district court; and (2) correctly found the process used by the IDED in processing the claim did not offend due process principles under the State or the Federal Constitutions. View "Ghost Player, LLC v. State" on Justia Law

In 2009, Central Arkansas Water, which owns and operates Lake Maumelle as a public water supply, authorized the collection of a “watershed fee” imposed on wholesale customers, including Appellants. That same year, Pulaski County and Central Arkansas Water (collectively, Appellees) entered into a watershed protection agreement. Appellants filed suit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated taxpayers, arguing that the watershed fee constituted an illegal exaction and that the the watershed protection agreement necessitated Central Arkansas Water to expend public funds illegally. The circuit court entered summary judgment for Appellees, concluding that the agreement was a proper contract for administrative services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly ruled that the watershed protection agreement was a valid agreement under Arkansas law. View "Sullins v. Cent. Ark. Water" on Justia Law

Rosana Claudio-de Leon (Claudio) and the University of the East of the Ana G. Mendez University System (SUAGM) entered into an employment contract that contained a forum selection clause precluding adjudication in federal court. Claudio, Luis F. Carrasquillo-Rivera, and the conjugal partnership Carrasquillo-Claudio (collectively, Appellants) filed suit against SUAGM in the district court, alleging, among other claims, pregnancy and gender discrimination. The district court dismissed Appellants’ Title VII pregnancy and gender discrimination claim and supplemental state law claims due to the forum selection clause. The First Circuit affirmed as modified, holding (1) the forum selection clause was applicable and enforceable; but (2) the district court should have dismissed the case without prejudice to permit Appellants to refile in the appropriate forum. Remanded. View "Claudio de-Leon v. Ayala" on Justia Law

Due to a dispute between the Citrus County Hospital Board and the Citrus Memorial Health Foundation, Inc., the Legislature enacted a special law that reeancted the Board’s charter. Section 16 of the charter included subsections that specifically addressed the Board’s relationship with the Foundation. The Foundation filed suit against the Board seeking a declaratory judgment that the the special law was an unconstitutional impairment of the parties’ contracts. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Board, concluding (1) the Foundation was prohibited from challenging the constitutionality of the special law because it was a public or quasi-public corporation; and (2) the special law did not impair the Foundation’s contracts. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that, as applied to the Foundation, the special law significantly altered the parties’ contractual rights and was an unconstitutional impairment of their contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Contract Clause of the Florida Constitution applies to the Foundation’s contracts; and (2) as applied, the special law unconstitutionally impairs the Foundation’s contracts.View "Citrus County Hosp. Bd. v. Citrus Memorial Health Found., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, a Canadian company, contracted with Plaintiff, a Massachusetts investment bank, to be its exclusive financial advisor for the sale of its business. The parties negotiated and executed the agreement from their respective home offices, contacting each other by phone, e-mail, and internet. Plaintiff later sued in Massachusetts Superior Court alleging breach of contract, among other claims. Defendant removed the case to federal district court. The district court subsequently dismissed the case, concluding that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant consistently with the Due Process Clause. The First Circuit reversed, holding that, in light of the nature, number, origin, and duration of the parties’ contacts in this case, the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction by Massachusetts was consistent with fair play and substantial justice.View "C.W. Downer & Co. v. Bioriginal Food & Sci. Corp." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the district court’s approval of the Utah Department of Financial Institutions’ (UDFI) seizure of America West Bank Members, L.C. (Bank) and the appointment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver of the Bank. The Bank filed a complaint against the State, UDFI, and the director of UDFI (collectively, the State), alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, constitutional takings, and due process violations. The district court dismissed the Bank’s claims for lack of sufficient factual allegations under Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it dismissed the Bank’s claims; and (2) the district court did not hold the Bank to a heightened pleading standard.View "America West Bank Members, L.C. v. State" on Justia Law

In 2009, Kristine Failla, a Washington resident and experienced salesperson, was looking for a job she could perform from her Gig Harbor home. She e-mailed Kenneth Schutz looking for such a position. Schutz was the founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of FixtureOne Corporation, which sells fixtures, casework, and displays for use in retail stores. Both FixtureOne and Schutz are based in Pennsylvania, and at the time of Failla's email, FixtureOne had no physical presence or customers in Washington. FixtureOne hired Failla as an account executive. In December 2010, Failla requested a promotion and a raise. Schutz agreed and promoted her to FixtureOne's vice president of sales, increased her yearly salary. Although there were outstanding commissions owed, Failla accepted the promotion and salary increase based on the assurances that the commissions would be paid. Schutz provided a draft employment agreement for Failla to sign in connection with the promotion. Among other things, the agreement contained a provision that it would be interpreted in accordance with Pennsylvania law. Failla proposed revisions to the agreement, but for reasons unknown neither Failla nor Schutz ever signed it. Failla continued working for FixtureOne from her Washington home until May 2011. She received regular paychecks, and the only issue in this case was the sales commissions owed to her that were not paid. In May 2011, Schutz emailed Failla to tell her that FixtureOne was "clos[ing] its doors" and ended her employment the following day. He assured Failla that FixtureOne would "pay your commissions and expenses asap in the next several weeks." For two months following her termination, Schutz returned Failla's requests for payment with various explanations as to why the commissions remained unpaid. Schutz eventually advised Failla that she would not receive a commission check and for the first time disputed whether such commissions were even owed. Failla filed suit against FixtureOne and Schutz for the wilfull withholding of wages, including an allegation that Schutz was individually liable under Washington's wage laws. Failla served Schutz in Pennsylvania but was unable to serve FixtureOne. Consequently the suit proceeded against Schutz alone. Failla and Schutz cross moved for summary judgment. Schutz argued that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because he did not have the requisite minimum contacts with the state, and even if Washington could exercise jurisdiction over him, there were genuine issues of material fact preventing the entry of summary judgment. The trial court concluded it had personal jurisdiction and denied Schutz's summary judgment motion. The court granted summary judgment to Failla, awarding double damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Washington's long-arm statute did not reach Schutz because the employment relationship between Failla and FixtureOne was inadequate to confer jurisdiction over Schutz. The Washington Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, and reversed. View "Failla v. FixtureOne Corp." on Justia Law