Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Appellant Joseph Francis incurred a $2 million debt at Wynn Las Vegas, a casino. When unable to collect on the debt, Wynn sued Francis for, among other things, breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment. When Wynn deposed Francis during discovery, Wynn invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to nearly every question. Wynn eventually filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted after refusing to permit Francis to withdraw his invocation and denying his request to reopen discovery. At issue on appeal was how, in response to a civil litigant's request for accommodation of his Fifth Amendment privilege, the district court should proceed in order to prevent the opposing party from being unfairly disadvantaged. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in response to a civil litigant's request for accommodation of his privilege, the district court should balance the interests of the invoking party and the opposing party's right to fair treatment; and (2) after reviewing the particular considerations in the instant case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit Appellant to withdraw his invocation or in denying his request to reopen discovery.

John Miller pled guilty to two counts of deliberate homicide. Miller later filed suit against James Goetz, the attorney that defended him, and arranged for Patrick Begley's limited representation in his claims against Goetz. Begley later withdrew from representing Miller. Miller then filed suit against Begley, alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent deceit. The district court granted summary judgment to Begley, finding that Begley had reasonably assisted Miller with his claims against Goetz and the dismissal of the Goetz claim was based on legal deficiencies unrelated to Begley's legal services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Begley as Miller failed to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact existed regarding his claims.

Plaintiff, employee, brought an action against Defendants, an archdiocese and a parish pastor, claiming that their refusal to renew her contract for employment as the principal of the parish school constituted, inter alia, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of implied contract and breach of promissory estoppel. The trial court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the action on the ground that adjudication of Plaintiff's claims called for impermissible judicial interference in the internal governance of the archdiocese with respect to its selection of religious leaders. At issue on appeal was whether the ministerial exception to judicial authority that precludes a court from adjudicating certain religious disputes required dismissal of the action. The Supreme Court first determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal, and then reversed the trial court, holding that (1) in considering whether the ministerial exception is applicable in a particular case, a Connecticut state court must follow the Rweyemamu v. Cote standard; and (2) the ministerial exception applied to the various claims in the plaintiff's complaint. Remanded with direction to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.

This case concerned the proper application of stare decisis and required the Supreme Court to decide whether "Collins v. Farmers Ins. Co." was still good law. In "Collins," the Court held that an exclusion in a motor vehicle liability insurance policy that purported to eliminate all coverage for a claim by one insured against another insured under the same policy was unenforceable to the extent that it failed to provide the minimum coverage required by the Financial Responsibility Law (FRL). The exclusion, however, was enforceable as to any coverage beyond that statutory minimum. In this case, Plaintiff Farmers Insurance Company issued an insurance policy to Defendant Tosha Mowry that contained an exclusion identical to the exclusion in "Collins". Defendant was injured in an accident in which her friend -- a permissive user and thus an insured person under the policy -- was driving. Plaintiff brought this action seeking a declaration that Defendant had $25,000 available in coverage under her policy -- the minimum coverage required by the FRL for bodily injury to one person in any one accident. Defendant argued that her coverage was $100,000, the insurance amount stated on the declarations page of her policy. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted Plaintiff's motion and denied Defendant's. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a per curiam opinion that cited "Collins." The Supreme Court concluded that Defendant "advanced no argument that this court has not previously considered for reaching a different result from that in 'Collins.' Defendant failed to carry the burden for overturning a fully considered precedent of this court."

Plaintiff sued her employer under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. 363A.01-43, and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601-54, and asserted other state common law claims including breach of employment contract. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the dismissal of her breach of contract claim with prejudice, the denials of her motions for leave to amend her complaint, the denial of her motion for consideration, and the adverse grant of her MHRA and FMLA claims by the district court. The court did not reach the merits of plaintiff's arguments because any error with respect to the dismissal of the breach of employment contract claim was harmless where plaintiff resigned from her employment with the county and failed to generate a genuine issue of fact as to constructive discharge in the context of her MHRA reprisal claim. The court also held that because plaintiff failed to generate an issue of fact as to whether she suffered a materially adverse employment action, summary judgment was appropriate as to her MHRA retaliation claim. The court further held that summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiff's FMLA interference claim where plaintiff did not contest the district court's finding that she received the full twelve weeks of FMLA leave to which she was entitled each year she requested it. The court finally held that summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim where she failed to generate an issue of fact as to whether she suffered an adverse employment action.

Five years after Homeowners contracted for the construction of their home, Homeonwers sued Elite Homes, the construction company that built their home, and Motorists Mutual Insurance, the insurance company that provided commercial general liability (CGL) insurance to the construction company while the home was under construction, claiming the house was so poorly built it was beyond repair. Motorists settled Homeonwers' claims against itself and Elite. Under the terms of the settlement, Homeowners and Elite assigned to Motorists all claims they may have had against Cincinnati Insurance, which was a successor to Motorists as Elite's CGL insurer. Motorists then filed a third-party complaint against Cincinnati. The trial court granted summary judgment to Cincinnati, holding that Homeowners' claims of intangible economic loss did not qualify as an "occurrence" causing property damage under Cincinnati's CGL policy. The court of appeals vacated the grant of summary judgment. At issue on appeal was whether faulty construction-related workmanship, standing alone, qualifies as an "occurrence" under a CGL policy. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the judgment of the trial court, holding that the trial court's conclusion that the claims were not an "occurrence" was correct.

Appellant appealed the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Lake Lotawana, and its mayor, and the subsequent dismissal of her wrongful termination and retaliation claims. On appeal, appellant contended that the city breached her employment contract and that she established triable issues of fact as to her retaliation claims. The court held that the city was entitled to summary judgment on appellant's wrongful termination claim where she did not have an enforceable contract or viable tort claim. The court also held that appellant was terminated because of her inappropriate activities and therefore, the dismissal of appellant's retaliation claims was affirmed because nothing in the record indicated that her opposition to unlawful discrimination was a contributing factor to her termination. The court further held, for the same reasons, that appellant could not succeed under the more stringent standard applied in the Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgement of the district court.

This action arose out of the sale of Giant Cement Holding, Inc. (Giant) by defendant Cementos Portland Valderrivas (CPV) to defendant Corporacion Uniland S.A. Sagarra Inversiones, S.L. (Sagarra) challenged the transaction on the basis of CPV's self-dealing because of its position as the majority shareholder on both sides of the transaction. Sagarra purported to bring this action individually and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Uniland Acquisition Corp. (Uniland Delaware). The court held that to the extent the Complaint asserted a multiple derivative action on behalf of Uniland Delaware, it must be dismissed because Sagarra did not have standing to raise those claims based on the court's review of Spanish law. The court held that for the same reasons, Counts I and II, which assert multiple derivative claims on behalf of Uniland Delaware, were dismissed. The court's determination with respect to Sagarra's lack of standing as to Counts I and II was equally applicable to Count III. The court finally held that because Count IV raised fiduciary duty claims under Spanish law, the better course of action was for the court to exercise its discretion and dismiss Count IV. Therefore, defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted and an implementing order would be entered.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dawn Bunch brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that Defendant Independent School District No. I-050 of Osage County (Prue Public Schools) violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. She appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the District in which the court concluded Plaintiff had no protected property interest in her employment and failed to show her speech was a motivating factor for her termination. An internal investigation found that Plaintiff âeither [. . .] wasnât properly trained or she was not doing her job as required.â The School Board in an open session, but without holding a due-process hearing, terminated Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff's complaint claimed a property interest in her employment contract entitled her to a hearing before her employment was terminated. She also alleged the termination was in retaliation for her exercise of free speech rights because, earlier that fall, she had signed a state-court petition calling for a grand jury investigation into the activities of Board members, and she had complained to friends and family about the Board. Upon review of the trial court's record and the applicable authority, the Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiff's proffered evidence of discrimination did not amount to the requisite proof that her civil and constitutional rights were violated. The Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgement in favor of the District.

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of its action against defendant, alleging tort, contract, and state statutory claims and seeking, among other remedies, a constructive trust and declaratory judgment over an oil and gas lease located on allotted land, wherein title to the land was held by the United States in trust for various Indian allottees. At issue was whether the district court had federal jurisdiction. The court held that 28 U.S.C. 1360(b), 28 U.S.C. 1331, and 25 U.S.C. 345 did not grant federal jurisdiction and therefore, plaintiff presented no basis for concluding that the action was within the "limited jurisdiction" of federal courts. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the suit based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the court did not need to reach any other issues raised by the parties, including exhaustion of tribal remedies. The court noted, however, that its holding did not preclude plaintiff from seeking relief in Blackfeet Tribal Court.