Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Radiance Capital Receivables Twelve, LLC ("Radiance") appealed a judgment from the Henry Circuit Court in favor of Bondy's Ford, Inc. ("Bondy's"). Radiance had garnished the wages of David Sherrill, who worked for Bondy's. Bondy's stopped paying on the garnishment, claiming Sherrill had left its employment, but continued to pay for Sherrill's services through a company created by Sherrill's wife. Radiance argued that Bondy's should still comply with the garnishment by withdrawing funds owed for Sherrill's services.The Henry Circuit Court had initially entered a garnishment judgment in favor of SE Property Holdings, LLC, which was later substituted by Radiance. Bondy's reported Sherrill's employment termination in September 2019, two months after the required notice period. Radiance filed a motion for judgment against Bondy's, arguing that Sherrill continued to provide services to Bondy's through his wife's company, KDS Aero Services, LLC. Bondy's responded with a motion to dismiss, claiming Sherrill was an independent contractor. The trial court granted Bondy's motion to dismiss and denied Radiance's motion.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo. The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Bondy's payments to KDS Aero Services were actually owed to Sherrill. The lack of a contract or invoices between Bondy's and KDS Aero Services, coupled with inconsistencies in Sherrill's representations about his employment and residence, suggested potential fraud or misuse of corporate form to hide funds. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that neither party had met the burden for summary judgment. View "Radiance Capital Receivables Twelve, LLC v. Bondy's Ford, Inc." on Justia Law

Jonathan Michel, a sophomore at Yale University during the Spring 2020 semester, filed a putative class action against Yale after the university transitioned to online-only classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Michel sought tuition refunds, claiming promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment under Connecticut law, arguing that Yale's refusal to refund tuition was inequitable since the online education provided was of lower value than the in-person education promised.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Yale's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Michel did not present evidence of financial detriment caused by the transition to online classes, a necessary element for both promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims. The court dismissed Michel's suit on January 31, 2023.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that Michel's quasi-contract claims were barred by a "Temporary Suspension Provision" in Yale's Undergraduate Regulations. This provision, which acted as a force majeure clause, allowed Yale to transition to online-only classes during the pandemic without issuing tuition refunds. The court concluded that Michel and Yale had a contractual relationship governed by this provision, which precluded Michel's quasi-contract claims. Therefore, Yale was entitled to summary judgment. View "Michel v. Yale University" on Justia Law

Windward Bora LLC purchased a junior promissory note signed by Constance and Royston Browne, secured by a junior mortgage on real property. Windward's predecessor had already obtained a final judgment of foreclosure on the junior mortgage. Without seeking leave from the court that issued the foreclosure, Windward filed a diversity action to recover on the promissory note. Both parties moved for summary judgment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Brownes' motion for summary judgment and denied Windward's. The court found diversity jurisdiction by comparing the national citizenship of the Brownes with that of Windward’s sole member, a U.S. lawful permanent resident, and concluded that state domiciles were irrelevant. It also held that the suit was precluded by New York’s election-of-remedies statute because Windward did not seek leave before suing on the note after its predecessor had already sued on the mortgage. The court found no special circumstances to excuse Windward’s failure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It agreed with the district court that diversity jurisdiction was present but clarified that the state domiciles of the parties were relevant. The court resolved a divide among district courts, stating that there is no diversity jurisdiction in a suit between U.S. citizens and unincorporated associations with lawful permanent resident members if such jurisdiction would not exist in a suit between the same U.S. citizens and those permanent resident members as individuals. The court also affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment for the Brownes under New York’s election-of-remedies statute, finding no special circumstances to excuse Windward’s failure to seek leave. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Bora v. Browne" on Justia Law

Farzam Salami received emergency services at Los Robles Regional Medical Center on three occasions in 2020. He signed a conditions of admission contract agreeing to pay for services rendered, as listed in the hospital's chargemaster. Los Robles billed him for these services, including a significant emergency services fee (EMS fee). Salami paid part of the discounted bill but disputed the EMS fee, claiming it covered general operating costs rather than services actually rendered. He argued that had he known about the EMS fee, he would have sought treatment elsewhere.Salami sued Los Robles in December 2021 for breach of contract and declaratory relief. The trial court sustained Los Robles's demurrer to the first amended complaint (FAC), finding that Salami did not allege he performed his duties under the contract or that Los Robles failed to perform its duties. The court also found that the breach of contract claim could not be cured by amendment. Salami was granted leave to amend to assert claims under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). In his third amended complaint (TAC), Salami alleged that Los Robles failed to disclose the EMS fee adequately.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Los Robles had no duty to disclose the EMS fee beyond including it in the chargemaster. The court referenced recent cases, including Moran v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc., which held that hospitals are not required to provide additional signage or warnings about EMS fees. The court concluded that Los Robles complied with its statutory and regulatory obligations, and Salami's claims under the UCL and CLRA failed as a result. The judgment in favor of Los Robles was affirmed. View "Salami v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

Michigan First Credit Union reimbursed its customers for unauthorized electronic fund transfers resulting from a SIM Swap scam involving T-Mobile USA, Inc. Michigan First sought to recover these funds from T-Mobile, claiming indemnification or contribution under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and state law. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that Michigan First failed to state a claim for indemnification or contribution under both the EFTA and state law.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Michigan First’s claims, finding no basis for indemnification or contribution under the EFTA or state law. Michigan First appealed, arguing that the EFTA implies a right to indemnification or contribution, that the Michigan Electronic Funds Transfer Act (MEFTA) is not preempted by the EFTA, and that its state common-law indemnification claim should stand.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the EFTA does not imply a right to indemnification or contribution for financial institutions, as the statute is designed to protect consumers, not financial institutions. The court also found that the EFTA preempts the MEFTA and any state common-law claims for indemnification or contribution, as allowing such claims would conflict with the EFTA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Michigan First’s complaint. View "Michigan First Credit Union v. T-Mobile USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Samuel Boytor, an engineer and businessman, and his wife Carol, defaulted on loans they had personally guaranteed. They entered into a settlement agreement with EFS Bank’s successor, restructuring their debt into three new promissory notes secured by mortgages on their properties. PNC Bank, which eventually held these notes, filed a complaint in 2018 against the Boytors for defaulting on two of the notes. PNC sought foreclosure on the Boytors’ residential property and a money judgment for the nonpayment of a separate note.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held a bench trial and found in favor of PNC on both counts. The court ordered foreclosure on the Boytors’ residential property and issued a deficiency judgment after the property was sold. The Boytors appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that PNC had established a prima facie case for foreclosure by presenting the mortgage and underlying note. The Boytors’ affirmative defenses, including lack of consideration and payment of the notes, were rejected. The court found that the $203,000 note was supported by consideration and that the Boytors had not paid the note. Additionally, the court determined that the $200,000 note was not paid, and the release of the mortgage did not extinguish the underlying debt. The court also rejected the Boytors’ argument of accord and satisfaction, finding no evidence of a new arrangement to pay less than the outstanding debt. View "PNC Bank, National Association v. Boytor" on Justia Law

John Craig First purchased an agricultural combine from Rolling Plains Implement Company, which was manufactured by AGCO Corporation. First was told the combine was part of AGCO’s Certified Pre-Owned Program, had roughly 400 hours of use, and had never been to the field. However, these representations were false; the combine was not certified and had over 1,200 hours of use. After experiencing numerous issues with the combine, First discovered in 2019 that it had an extensive repair history and over 900 hours of use. He then filed a lawsuit against Rolling Plains, AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, AGCO Finance, and other related entities.Initially, First filed his lawsuit in the District Court of Oklahoma County, but it was removed to federal court in Oklahoma, which dismissed the case without prejudice and transferred it to the Northern District of Texas. First amended his complaint multiple times, asserting claims of fraud, breach of warranty, and failure of essential purpose. The district court dismissed the fraud claims against AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, and AGCO Finance for lack of particularity and granted summary judgment in favor of AGCO Finance on the warranty claims. The case proceeded to trial on the remaining claims, where the jury found that First knew or should have known of the fraud by April 13, 2017, and awarded him $96,000 in damages. However, the district court entered judgment in favor of Rolling Plains based on the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It vacated the district court’s judgment as a matter of law in favor of Rolling Plains, finding insufficient evidence to support the jury’s selected date for the statute of limitations. The case was remanded for retrial on when First’s cause of action accrued. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of fraud claims against AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, and AGCO Finance, and upheld the summary judgment in favor of AGCO Finance on the warranty claims. View "First v. Rolling Plains Implement Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs William Pace and Robert Walters leased apartments at Hamilton Cove, a complex in Weehawken, New Jersey, based on advertisements claiming 24/7 security. After moving in, they discovered that the security was not as advertised. They filed a complaint in March 2022, alleging common law fraud and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), seeking to certify a class of similarly affected tenants. The leases included a class action waiver, which defendants argued should prevent the class action. Plaintiffs contended the leases were unconscionable contracts of adhesion.The trial court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the complaint sufficiently pled fraud. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that class action waivers in contracts without mandatory arbitration provisions are unenforceable as a matter of public policy. The court distinguished this case from AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Appellate Division emphasized New Jersey's public policy favoring class actions for consumer protection.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court held that class action waivers in consumer contracts are not inherently contrary to public policy and can be enforceable unless found to be unconscionable or invalid under general contract principles. The Court found that the class action waiver in the lease agreements was clear and unambiguous, and the leases were not unconscionable. Therefore, the class action waiver was enforceable, and plaintiffs must pursue their claims individually. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Pace v. Hamilton Cove" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a real estate and construction contract. The plaintiffs, Myles Davis and Janelle Dahl, sued their homebuilder, Blast Properties, Inc., and Tyler Bosier, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, but certified a question to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho due to inconsistencies in the interpretation of Idaho Code section 6-1604(2), which prohibits claimants from including a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages in their initial pleading.The U.S. District Court asked the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho to determine the proper means a trial court must apply when considering a motion to amend a pleading to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages pursuant to Idaho Code section 6-1604(2). The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho rephrased the question to clarify the obligations of a trial court under Idaho Code section 6-1604(2) when ruling upon a motion to amend a complaint or counterclaim to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that section 6-1604(2) requires the trial court to conduct a careful examination of the evidence submitted by the moving party in support of its motion to amend and the arguments made to determine whether there is a "reasonable probability" that the evidence submitted is: (1) admissible at trial; and (2) "sufficient" to support an award of punitive damages. The word "sufficient" means that the claim giving rise to the request for punitive damages must be legally cognizable and the evidence presented must be substantial. The court clarified that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is the standard for a jury, not the trial court when it is ruling on a motion to amend a pleading to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. View "Davis v. Blast" on Justia Law

In this case, plaintiffs Brandi Stiles and Abel Gorgita purchased a 2011 Kia Optima in April 2013. The car, manufactured and distributed by Kia Motors America, Inc., was sold with express warranties still in effect from the original sale. However, the car had serious defects, including issues with the transmission, electrical system, brakes, engine, suspension, and steering. Despite multiple attempts, Kia was unable to repair these defects. The plaintiffs argued that Kia failed to replace the car or make restitution as required under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.The trial court sustained Kia's demurrer, arguing that the remedies sought by the plaintiffs under the Song-Beverly Act only apply to new motor vehicles. The court relied on a previous case, Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, which held that a used motor vehicle with an unexpired warranty is not a "new motor vehicle" under the Song-Beverly Act. The court rejected another case, Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc., which held that a previously owned motor vehicle with an unexpired warranty qualifies as a "new motor vehicle" under the Song-Beverly Act.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six reversed the trial court's decision. The court held that a previously owned motor vehicle purchased with the manufacturer’s new car warranty still in effect is a “new motor vehicle” as defined by section 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2) of the Song-Beverly Act. Thus, the replace or refund remedy of section 1793.2, subdivision (d)(2) applies. The court rejected Kia's arguments and affirmed the interpretation of the Song-Beverly Act in Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. The court also modified the opinion to clarify the interpretation of the implied warranty provisions. View "Stiles v. Kia Motors America, Inc." on Justia Law