Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), an American technology services provider, licensed two insurance software platforms, Vantage and CyberLife, to Transamerica, an insurance company. Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), a technology consulting firm, was later engaged by Transamerica as a third-party consultant to maintain CSC’s platforms. CSC and Transamerica signed a Third-Party Addendum allowing TCS access to CSC’s software “solely for the benefit” of Transamerica. During this period, TCS sought to develop its own insurance platform, BaNCS, and won a $2.6 billion contract to transition Transamerica’s business to BaNCS. Evidence arose that TCS used CSC’s confidential information, including source code and technical manuals, for its BaNCS development, prompting CSC to allege trade secret misappropriation when a CSC employee discovered TCS sharing proprietary materials internally.CSC sued TCS in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). After an eight-day trial with an advisory jury, the jury found in favor of CSC, recommending substantial damages. The district court found TCS liable, awarding CSC $56 million in compensatory damages (based on unjust enrichment), $112 million in exemplary damages, and imposing a permanent injunction barring TCS’s use of CSC’s trade secrets and BaNCS versions developed with misappropriated material.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings that TCS’s use was unauthorized under the relevant contracts and that TCS had the requisite mens rea, including willful and malicious misappropriation. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the damages awards and the exemplary damages ratio. However, the court vacated the injunction in part, remanding for the district court to revise it: the injunction’s prohibition on TCS’s future use of BaNCS material developed post-misappropriation was found duplicative of the damages, and the definition of parties bound by the injunction was ordered to be clarified in line with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2). View "Computer Sciences v. Tata Consultancy" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a manufacturer of construction equipment and its distributor over a 2012 distribution agreement. The distributor alleged that the manufacturer breached the agreement by selling covered equipment directly to third parties, bypassing the distributor. The manufacturer, in turn, counterclaimed that the distributor failed to pay amounts due under a 2016 rental agreement and for various purchases made between 2016 and 2017. Both parties sought damages and prejudgment interest related to their respective claims and counterclaims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, after the completion of discovery, granted summary judgment for the distributor on liability for its breach-of-contract claim, leaving damages to be determined by a jury. The court also granted summary judgment for the manufacturer as to both liability and damages on its breach-of-contract counterclaim. A jury awarded the distributor substantial damages for the manufacturer’s breach. The district court denied the manufacturer’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial or remittitur, and later awarded prejudgment interest to the distributor, despite the manufacturer’s objection that the request was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed whether the distributor’s motion for prejudgment interest was timely. The court held that the initial judgment entered by the district court was not sufficiently final, as it omitted reference to the manufacturer’s successful counterclaim and the award of prejudgment interest. As a result, the 28-day deadline for a Rule 59(e) motion was not triggered until a later, comprehensive, final judgment was entered. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of prejudgment interest to the distributor. View "Alessi Equip., Inc. v. Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc." on Justia Law

An incarcerated individual at Corcoran State Prison hired an attorney to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, both in state and potentially federal court, for a total fee of $35,000. The attorney did not file the petition as agreed, leading the client to sue for breach of contract. Throughout the proceedings, the plaintiff notified the Superior Court of Orange County multiple times that he was incarcerated, requested remote appearances, and actively participated by filing necessary court documents, including a case management statement and fee waiver application. Despite these efforts, the plaintiff failed to appear for the scheduled trial, and the attorney attended and testified that the plaintiff was incarcerated.After the plaintiff's failure to appear at trial, the Superior Court of Orange County dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, stating it was unaware of the plaintiff’s incarceration until the day of trial. The plaintiff appealed this dismissal, arguing that the court should have recognized his incarceration and taken additional steps before terminating the case.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the dismissal. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the lawsuit without first issuing an order to show cause or ensuring that the plaintiff had meaningful access to the court. The court emphasized that incarcerated, indigent litigants must be afforded meaningful access to civil courts, and that dismissal is a drastic remedy reserved for rare circumstances. The appellate court reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to provide the plaintiff with meaningful access to the court and to communicate with prison officials as necessary. The plaintiff may recover costs on appeal, subject to further determination by the trial court. View "Park v. Guisti" on Justia Law

In this dispute, a charitable foundation affiliated with a musical instruments company loaned a rhinestone-adorned piano, previously owned by Liberace, to a piano retailer under an agreement made in 2011. The arrangement allowed the retailer to display and promote the piano while the foundation avoided storage responsibilities. In 2019, the foundation requested the piano’s return, but the retailer refused, which led the foundation to allege a breach of the bailment agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts initially granted summary judgment to the retailer, holding that the bailment claim was time-barred. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, finding there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the foundation’s ownership of the piano at the time of the agreement. On remand, the case proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict for the foundation on its breach-of-bailment claim, and judgment was entered accordingly.The First Circuit reviewed the retailer’s appeal, where he challenged the judgment on grounds that certain emails should not have been admitted at trial, that the foundation was judicially estopped from pursuing its claim, and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the emails under the hearsay exception for statements of intent, nor in finding the emails relevant. The court also concluded that the District Court properly declined to apply judicial estoppel, as the standard does not require proof of fraudulent intent and that the jury had sufficient evidence to find a bailment agreement existed. Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "Gibson Foundation, Inc. v. Norris" on Justia Law

A 2018 data breach at Barracuda Networks exposed protected health information of patients of Zoll Services LLC, a subsidiary of Zoll Medical Corporation. Zoll had contracted with Fusion LLC for data security services, and Fusion in turn relied on Barracuda’s technology. The agreements between these companies included certain liability and indemnification provisions, as well as a right for Barracuda to audit Fusion’s customer contracts. After the breach, Zoll settled a class action brought by its customers whose data was compromised.Following these events, Zoll initiated arbitration against Fusion and filed suit against Barracuda in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Fusion intervened and asserted additional claims against Barracuda. The district court dismissed most claims but allowed Zoll’s equitable indemnification claim and Fusion’s breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims to proceed. After arbitration and settlements, Axis Insurance Company, as assignee and subrogee of Zoll and Fusion, was substituted as plaintiff. Barracuda moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims, which the district court granted.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment rulings de novo. The appellate court held that Axis failed to present evidence of a relationship between Zoll and Barracuda that would support derivative or vicarious liability necessary for equitable indemnification under Massachusetts law. The court found that Fusion did not meet a condition precedent in its contract with Barracuda, and Barracuda had not waived or was estopped from asserting that condition. Further, Axis could not show that Barracuda breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as no relevant contractual right existed. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Barracuda on all claims. View "Axis Insurance Company v. Barracuda Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance and two related misdemeanors. He and the prosecution entered into a plea agreement under which he would plead guilty to the felony, the misdemeanors would be dismissed, and he would receive a suspended sentence with probation, provided he complied with certain conditions. The agreement included a clause stating it would be “null and void” if the defendant failed to appear for his presentence appointment or sentencing without good cause. After entering his guilty plea, the defendant failed to appear for both the presentence appointment and sentencing, leading to his arrest on a bench warrant.Following these events, the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Nez Perce County, determined that the “null and void” clause released the State and the court from their obligations under the plea agreement, but held that the defendant remained bound by his guilty plea. The court imposed a sentence inconsistent with the plea agreement and did not allow the defendant to withdraw his plea. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment.On review, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the “null and void” clause. The Supreme Court concluded that, under general contract principles, the clause rendered the entire plea agreement unenforceable by either party upon breach, not just by the State. The court further held that, under Idaho Criminal Rule 11(f)(4), once the plea agreement was rendered unenforceable and the court declined to be bound by its terms, the defendant was entitled to an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the district court failed to provide this opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. McGarvey" on Justia Law

Lewis Patrick and Michele Sivertson owned and managed Laughing Dog Brewing, Inc. (LDB), which faced financial difficulties in 2017. To address these issues, they, along with affiliated entities AHR, LLC and Fetchingly Good, LLC, engaged attorney Ford Elsaesser to restructure their debt. Elsaesser drafted a promissory note and facilitated the transfer of LDB’s assets to AHR and Fetchingly Good, allegedly without disclosing conflicts of interest or legal risks. After the asset transfer, Fetchingly Good assumed LDB’s operations, and LDB filed for bankruptcy. Acorn Investments, LLC, a creditor with a judgment against LDB, sued the Original Plaintiffs under various theories, including the Idaho Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and racketeering statutes.The litigation between Acorn and the Original Plaintiffs was resolved through a settlement agreement. The Original Plaintiffs stipulated to a judgment in favor of Acorn, but Acorn agreed not to execute on the judgment. Instead, Acorn received an assignment of the Original Plaintiffs’ claims against Elsaesser, including legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Acorn substituted as plaintiff in the malpractice case. Elsaesser moved for summary judgment, arguing that the malpractice claim was not assignable. The District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County, agreed and dismissed the case without prejudice, finding the assignment did not meet the exception for assignability established in St. Luke’s Magic Valley Regional Medical Center v. Luciani.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that the assignment of the legal malpractice claim to Acorn did not fall within the Luciani exception, which allows assignment only when such claims are transferred as part of a larger commercial transaction involving other business assets and liabilities. Here, only the claims were assigned, not any business assets or obligations. The Court also declined to award attorney fees to either party, but awarded costs to Elsaesser. View "Acorn Investments, LLC v. Elsaesser" on Justia Law

A resident of Madison County, Mississippi, received medical treatment at a hospital in Hinds County and later filed a claim with her health insurer, a foreign corporation doing business in the state. The insurer partially paid the claim but later, through its third-party administrator, asserted the hospital was out of network before eventually admitting it was in network. Despite repeated efforts by the insured to resolve the dispute, the insurer failed to pay the remaining balance or provide an explanation, ultimately stating the claim was untimely. The insured then sued the insurer and the administrator in Hinds County, seeking damages for breach of contract and related claims.The Circuit Court of Hinds County denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue to Madison County. Only the insurer sought and was granted an interlocutory appeal from this order. The administrator did not join the appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case, applying de novo review to the interpretation of the venue statute and abuse of discretion to the trial court’s venue ruling. The Court held that, under Mississippi Code Section 11-11-3(1)(a)(i), venue is proper where a substantial act or omission by the defendant caused the injury for which the plaintiff seeks redress. The Court found that the medical treatment in Hinds County was not a substantial event caused by the insurer that resulted in the alleged injury; rather, the alleged injury arose from the insurer’s acts or omissions related to the insurance contract, which were not tied to Hinds County. The Court overruled prior precedent to the extent it conflicted with this interpretation and concluded that venue was proper in Madison County. The judgment of the Hinds County Circuit Court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in Madison County. View "National Health Insurance Company v. Lever" on Justia Law

Two Saudi Arabian companies, Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company and Al Rushaid Trading Company, specialized in helping foreign manufacturers access the Saudi oil and gas market. Over several decades, they entered into various agreements with Dresser-Rand Group (DRG), including exclusive sales representation and joint venture contracts related to the sale and servicing of DRG products in Saudi Arabia. In 2014, Siemens Energy announced its acquisition of DRG, which was completed in 2015. After the acquisition, Al Rushaid alleged that Siemens excluded them from contracts and joint venture benefits, misused proprietary information, and diverted business opportunities.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida first dismissed Al Rushaid’s original complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading but allowed amendment. Al Rushaid then filed an amended complaint asserting claims for tortious interference, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed all claims without prejudice, finding that Siemens was not a stranger to the relevant business relationships due to its ownership of DRG, that the unfair competition claim was improperly pleaded and lacked necessary elements, and that the unjust enrichment claim failed to meet pleading standards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. The court held that Siemens, as owner of DRG, was not a stranger to the contracts or business relationships under Florida law, defeating the tortious interference claims. The unfair competition claim was dismissed as a shotgun pleading and for failure to allege required elements. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed for lack of clarity and because express contracts governed the subject matter. The district court’s dismissal of all claims without prejudice was affirmed. View "Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company v. Siemens Energy Incorporated" on Justia Law

A nonprofit corporation purchased a 192-unit apartment complex from a government agency in 1994 at a significant discount. In exchange, the purchaser agreed by contract to rent all units at below-market rates to low-income families for 40 years and to comply with annual reporting and administrative fee requirements. Around 2016, the purchaser stopped fulfilling these obligations, including the reporting and fee provisions. The government’s successor agency, through its monitoring agent, notified the purchaser of the breach and initiated legal action seeking remedies under the contract.The purchaser counterclaimed in state court, seeking a declaration that the agreement was no longer enforceable and an injunction against further enforcement. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as successor to the original government agency, intervened, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The purchaser argued that the contract’s obligations ended when Congress repealed the statute that created the original agency and authorized such agreements. The district court rejected this argument, holding that the contract remained enforceable, dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, and remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the contract’s plain language required the purchaser to comply with its obligations for the full 40-year term, regardless of the repeal of the underlying statute. The court found that the FDIC, as successor, retained both contractual and statutory authority to enforce the agreement. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the counterclaim, concluding that the agreement remains enforceable and the purchaser is still bound by its terms. View "Affordable Housing Group, Inc. v. Florida Housing Affordability, Inc." on Justia Law