Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In April 2013, Brandi Stiles and Abel Gorgita purchased a 2011 Kia Optima, which was manufactured and distributed by Kia Motors America, Inc. At the time of purchase, some of Kia's original warranties were still in effect, including the basic and drivetrain warranties. The car developed serious defects covered by the warranties, including issues with the transmission, electrical system, brakes, engine, suspension, and steering. Despite multiple attempts, Kia was unable to repair the defects. Stiles and Gorgita alleged that Kia failed to replace the car or make restitution as required under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.Kia demurred to the first amended complaint, arguing that the remedies sought under the Song-Beverly Act apply only to new motor vehicles, and the car purchased by Stiles and Gorgita was not a "new motor vehicle" as defined in the Act. The trial court sustained Kia's demurrer, relying 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 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 the Song-Beverly Act. Therefore, the replace or refund remedy of the Act applies. The court rejected Kia's argument that the Act's definition of a "new motor vehicle" should be limited to vehicles that have never been previously sold to a consumer and come with full express warranties. The court also rejected Kia's argument that Stiles and Gorgita's interpretation of the Act conflicts with its implied warranty provisions. View "Stiles v. Kia Motors America, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a group of bettors who sued Churchill Downs, Inc., and trainers Robert Baffert and Bob Baffert Racing, Inc., after the horse they bet on, Medina Spirit, was disqualified from the 2021 Kentucky Derby due to a failed post-race drug test. The bettors claimed that they would have won their bets under the new order of finish after Medina Spirit's disqualification. However, under Kentucky law, only the first order of finish marked "official" counts for wagering purposes. The plaintiffs brought claims for negligence, breach of contract, violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, which granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were based on the theory that they had "unpaid winning wagers," but under Kentucky law, the first official order of finish is final. Therefore, the plaintiffs' wagers were lost, and the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the plaintiffs' claims were based on the theory that they had "unpaid winning wagers." However, under Kentucky law, the first official order of finish is final for wagering purposes. Therefore, the plaintiffs' wagers were lost, and the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court also found that the proposed amendment to the complaint did not cure this flaw, so the lower court properly denied leave to amend. View "Mattera v. Baffert" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a bank and a homeowner over a foreclosure action. The bank sought to foreclose on a mortgage after the homeowner defaulted on a promissory note secured by the mortgage. The mortgage agreement included a provision authorizing the bank to purchase force placed insurance coverage for the property if the homeowner failed to maintain adequate coverage. The homeowner alleged that the bank was involved in an undisclosed kickback scheme with an insurance provider, which led to him being charged more than the cost of purchasing the force placed coverage, contrary to the provisions of the mortgage agreement and certain representations the bank had made to him. The bank filed a motion to strike the special defenses and the counterclaim, which the trial court granted in part. The trial court subsequently granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment as to liability and rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale, from which the homeowner appealed.The Supreme Court of Connecticut denied the bank's motion to dismiss the appeal, concluding that the filed rate doctrine, as applied by the federal courts, did not affect the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. The court also found that the trial court improperly struck the homeowner’s special defenses of unclean hands and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court reasoned that the homeowner's allegations were directly related to the bank's enforcement of the provision of the mortgage agreement authorizing the bank to purchase force placed insurance, and the alleged effect of the bank’s conduct in enforcing that provision, that it wrongfully increased the homeowner’s overall debt, provided a sufficient nexus to the foreclosure action. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "M&T Bank v. Lewis" on Justia Law

A group of individuals, including a minor, filed a class action lawsuit against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. for alleged misrepresentations related to the mobile application Game of Thrones: Conquest (GOTC). The plaintiffs claimed that Warner Bros. engaged in false and misleading advertising within the game. In response, Warner Bros. moved to compel arbitration of all claims based on the GOTC Terms of Service, which users agree to by tapping a “Play” button located on the app’s sign-in screen. The district court denied Warner Bros.' motion, finding that the notice of the Terms of Service was insufficiently conspicuous to bind users to them.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lower court had found that Warner Bros. failed to provide reasonably conspicuous notice of its Terms of Service, thus denying the motion to compel arbitration. The district court focused on whether the context of the transaction put the plaintiffs on notice that they were agreeing to the Terms of Service, concluding that the app did not involve a continuing relationship that would require some terms and conditions.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court erred in finding that Warner Bros. failed to provide reasonably conspicuous notice. The court found that the context of the transaction and the placement of the notice were both sufficient to provide reasonably conspicuous notice. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable due to its ban on public injunctive relief. The court concluded that the unenforceability of the waiver of one’s right to seek public injunctive relief did not make either this provision or the arbitration agreement unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "KEEBAUGH V. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC." on Justia Law

Yasmin Varela filed a class action lawsuit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) after a car accident. Varela's insurance policy with State Farm entitled her to the "actual cash value" of her totaled car. However, she alleged that State Farm improperly adjusted the value of her car based on a "typical negotiation" deduction, which was not defined or mentioned in the policy. Varela claimed this deduction was arbitrary, did not reflect market realities, and was not authorized by Minnesota law. She sued State Farm for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA).State Farm moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Varela's claims were subject to mandatory, binding arbitration under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (No-Fault Act). The district court granted State Farm's motion in part, agreeing that Varela's claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment fell within the No-Fault Act's mandatory arbitration provision. However, the court found that Varela's MCFA claim did not seek the type of relief addressed by the No-Fault Act and was neither time-barred nor improperly pleaded, and thus denied State Farm's motion to dismiss this claim.State Farm appealed, arguing that Varela's MCFA claim was subject to mandatory arbitration and should have been dismissed. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that State Farm did not invoke the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in its motion to dismiss and did not file a motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that the district court's order turned entirely on a question of state law, and the policy contained no arbitration provision for the district court to "compel." Therefore, State Farm failed to establish the court's jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal. View "Varela v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined a dispute between the plaintiffs, John and Dawn Harrell, and the defendant, Douglas DeLuca. The Harrells sued DeLuca, a general contractor from whom they purchased a home, for fraudulent inducement, constructive fraud, breach of contract, and violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of DeLuca regarding the Harrells’ fraud claims based on one category of misrepresentations. The case otherwise proceeded to a bench trial where the court found DeLuca liable for breaching the contract, but not for the remaining claims. The Harrells appealed, arguing that summary judgment was inappropriate and that the district court should have made explicit findings related to their constructive fraud and breach-of-contract claims.The Court of Appeals upheld parts of the lower court's decision but also vacated parts of it. It agreed with the Harrells that the summary judgment was inappropriate, vacated it, and remanded the case for additional proceedings. It also agreed that the district court should have made explicit findings related to one of each of their constructive fraud and breach-of-contract claims. However, it affirmed the resolutions of the remaining claims which were not challenged by the Harrells on appeal. The court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Harrell v. Deluca" on Justia Law

In this case, Damien T. Davis and Johnetta H. Lane ("the plaintiffs") filed suit against Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan of San Bernardino ("Nissan") after they allegedly bought a faulty Nissan vehicle with a defective transmission. Nissan attempted to compel arbitration as per the arbitration clause in the sale contract between plaintiffs and the dealership. However, the trial court denied the motion, ruling that Nissan, not being a party to the contract, could not invoke the clause based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.Nissan appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing to compel arbitration based on equitable estoppel. However, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One, State of California, agreed with the trial court's ruling reasoning that Nissan's reliance on the doctrine of equitable estoppel was misplaced. It explained that equitable estoppel applies when a party's claims against a non-signatory are dependent upon the underlying contractual obligations. Here, the plaintiffs' claims were not founded on the sale contract's terms, but rather on Nissan's statutory obligations under the Song-Beverly Act relating to manufacturer warranties. The court concluded that the plaintiffs are pursuing their statutory and tort claims in court, and there was no inequity in allowing them to do so.Therefore, Nissan's motion to compel arbitration was denied, and the trial court's order was affirmed. View "Davis v. Nissan North America, Inc." on Justia Law

Two individuals, Ronald and Karen White, bought a used car from Real Deal Auto Sales & Service Center, LLC. After experiencing issues with the car, the Whites asked Real Deal to either replace the car's catalytic converters or give them a refund, which Real Deal refused. Subsequently, the Whites repaired the car themselves and sued Real Deal in a small claims action. The District Court ordered Real Deal to pay the Whites $6,000 for the repairs, plus costs. Real Deal appealed this decision to the Superior Court, which reversed the District Court's decision. The Whites appealed this reversal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of the Whites, agreeing that the Superior Court erred in reversing the original judgement. The case was therefore remanded for reinstatement of the small claims judgement in favor of the Whites.This decision was based on a Maine law which states that a dealer warrants that a vehicle has been inspected according to rules laid down by the state. Evidence presented by the Whites suggested that parts of the car's exhaust system were inadequate, which could have led the District Court to infer that the car did not meet state inspection standards at the time of sale. As such, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the evidence could support a determination that Real Deal breached the warranty of inspectability, thereby violating the Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Court remanded the matter to the Superior Court to enter a judgment affirming the District Court’s small claims judgement in favor of the Whites. View "White v. Real Deal Auto Sales & Service Center, LLC" on Justia Law

In the case of Maryann Jones v. Solgen Construction, LLC and GoodLeap, LLC, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision not to compel arbitration. The case concerned a business relationship involving the installation of home solar panels. The appellants, Solgen Construction and GoodLeap, had appealed the trial court's denial of their separate motions to compel arbitration, arguing that the court had erred in several ways, including by concluding that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed.Jones, the respondent, had filed a lawsuit alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligence, and violations of various consumer protection laws. She contended that she had been misled into believing she was signing up for a free government program to lower her energy costs, not entering into a 25-year loan agreement for solar panels. The appellants argued that Jones had signed contracts containing arbitration clauses, but the court found that the appellants had failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The court also held that the contract was unenforceable due to being unconscionable.The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, rejecting the appellants' arguments that an evidentiary hearing should have been held and that the court had erred in its interpretation of the evidence and the law. It found that the trial court had not abused its discretion and that its finding that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof was not erroneous as a matter of law. View "Jones v. Solgen Construction" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Melissa Sanchez, a tenant, and Chris and Jennifer Pickering, her landlords, over the terms of a lease agreement for a mobile home owned by the Pickerings. Sanchez believed the agreement was a lease-to-own contract, while the Pickerings asserted it was a lease with a purchase option contract. After the Pickerings initiated an eviction action due to Sanchez's alleged violations of the agreement, Sanchez caused extensive damage to the home.The Pickerings sued Sanchez for waste, claiming she caused $40,000 in damages and sought treble damages. Sanchez counterclaimed, alleging violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (ICPA), breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and retaliatory eviction. The district court found Sanchez liable for damages to the residence and awarded treble damages. It also determined that there was no deception on the Pickerings' part to sustain Sanchez's ICPA claim, the agreement was unenforceable due to a lack of mutual understanding, and that the Pickerings were unjustly enriched by the $10,000 down payment and offset the Pickerings' damages award by this amount. The remaining claims were dismissed.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision. The court found substantial and competent evidence supporting the district court's decision that the Pickerings did not engage in a deceptive act under the ICPA. The court also rejected Sanchez's contention that the district court's damages award should have been reduced to reflect an insurance payment received by the Pickerings as Sanchez failed to provide an adequate record for review. Finally, the court upheld the district court's unjust enrichment award, finding that Sanchez had not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. The Pickerings were awarded attorney fees for having to respond to the collateral source issue. View "Pickering v. Sanchez" on Justia Law