Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Daevieon Towns purchased a new Hyundai Elantra in 2016, and over the next 19 months, the car required multiple repairs for alleged electrical and engine defects. In March 2018, either Towns or his wife, Lashona Johnson, requested that Hyundai buy back the defective vehicle. Before Hyundai acted, the car was involved in a collision, declared a total loss, and Johnson’s insurance paid her $14,710.91.Towns initially sued Hyundai Motor America in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. As trial approached, Towns amended his complaint to add Johnson as a plaintiff, arguing she was the primary driver and responsible for the vehicle. The trial court allowed the amendment, finding Johnson was not a buyer but permitted her to proceed based on its interpretation of Patel v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. At trial, the jury found for Towns and Johnson, awarding damages and civil penalties. However, the court reduced the damages by the insurance payout and adjusted the prejudgment interest accordingly. Both parties challenged the judgment and costs in post-trial motions.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that only a buyer has standing under the Act, so Johnson could not be a plaintiff. The court also held that third-party insurance payments do not reduce statutory damages under the Act, following the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC. Furthermore, prejudgment interest is available under Civil Code section 3288 because Hyundai’s statutory obligations do not arise from contract. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to enter a modified judgment and reconsider costs. View "Towns v. Hyundai Motor America" on Justia Law

Following Hurricane Laura, a Texas-based company, Top Notch Movers, provided moving services in Alabama and Louisiana to Shamrock Enterprises, an Alabama-based LLC. Top Notch sent a demand letter to Shamrock seeking payment for over $170,000 in unpaid invoices. Subsequently, Top Notch filed suit in Texas for nonpayment, listing Shamrock’s principal office as a Foley, Alabama address and seeking substituted service via the Texas Secretary of State under section 5.251(1)(A) of the Texas Business Organizations Code. The Secretary of State attempted to forward process to the Foley address, but the mailing was returned as undeliverable. Shamrock did not appear, and Top Notch obtained a default judgment, which was also mailed to the same address and returned.Shamrock later initiated a restricted appeal, arguing that service of process was improper. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the default judgment, finding that Shamrock was amenable to substituted service under the cited statute and that the Secretary of State’s Whitney certificate constituted irrebuttable proof of proper service.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and determined that even if Shamrock was subject to substituted service under section 5.251(1)(A), the record did not show that process was forwarded to the statutorily required address—Shamrock’s “most recent address . . . on file with the secretary of state.” The court clarified that a Whitney certificate only proves that process was sent to the address provided, not that the statutory requirements were met, and strict compliance is necessary for a valid default judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacated the default judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "SHAMROCK ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TOP NOTCH MOVERS, LLC" on Justia Law

An individual who founded a Michigan biomedical research company sold a majority stake in 2019 to four defendants but retained a minority interest, later becoming dissatisfied with the company’s management and moving out of state. The new owners aimed to expand the company but withheld information from the plaintiff about their efforts to secure financing, including discussions with Avista Capital Partners, a venture capital firm that ultimately made a large investment. The plaintiff sold his shares in December 2020 for a price based on an annual valuation, prior to Avista’s capital infusion that significantly increased the company’s value. The plaintiff later sued, alleging violations of federal and state securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty under Michigan law, and various fraud and contract claims based on the defendants’ failure to disclose material facts about the company’s pursuit of equity financing and Avista’s interest.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. That court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss but, following discovery, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts. The court concluded that the omissions were not material under federal securities law and, applying Delaware law and a federal standard, also found no materiality for the breach of fiduciary duty claim under Michigan law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment as to the federal securities law claims, the Michigan Uniform Securities Act claim, and the contract-based claims, holding that the omissions were not material under the applicable federal standards. However, the Sixth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for the Michigan common-law fiduciary duty and fraud claims, finding the district court had applied an incorrect legal standard and that genuine disputes of material fact remained. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the fiduciary duty and fraud counts. View "Boyd v. Northern Biomedical Research Inc." on Justia Law

A dispute arose regarding the sale of property located at 301 Harris Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island. The plaintiff, 1100 North Main LLC, sought to purchase property from the Providence Firefighters Realty Corp. (the Firefighters), contingent on the Firefighters acquiring replacement property. The Firefighters entered into negotiations with the defendant, Shoreby Hill Properties, Inc., to purchase the Harris Avenue property. After several communications, the Firefighters signed a draft purchase and sales agreement for the property, but the defendant refused to execute it and reportedly accepted another offer. The plaintiff then filed a complaint seeking declaratory, equitable, or monetary relief based on the alleged contract, and recorded two notices of lis pendens against the Harris Avenue property.In the Providence County Superior Court, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, quash the lis pendens, and sought sanctions. The plaintiff argued that the attorneys’ communications constituted assent and that a purported assignment from the Firefighters gave the plaintiff standing. Before the Superior Court justice issued a decision, the plaintiff attempted to amend its complaint to add factual allegations and clarify standing. The trial justice dismissed the complaint and quashed the lis pendens, finding that the allegations failed to satisfy the statute of frauds and did not establish standing. The motion to amend was denied as futile, as no enforceable contract was found.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed whether a binding contract existed under the statute of frauds and whether denial of the motion to amend was proper. The Supreme Court held that the unsigned purchase and sales agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds and no binding contract existed. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the complaint, quashing of the lis pendens, and denial of the motion to amend. View "1100 North Main LLC v. Shoreby Hill Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

A businessman and rancher in South Dakota, after dating a Colorado horse breeder for nearly a year, proposed marriage. Shortly before the wedding, he presented her with a prenuptial agreement drafted by his attorney. The agreement waived her right to any share of his estate after his death. The parties signed the agreement at the attorney’s office minutes before their civil ceremony. They were later married in Italy and had two children. The businessman died approximately eight years later. The surviving spouse then petitioned for an elective share of the estate and a family allowance, claiming her signature on the agreement was involuntary and the agreement was unconscionable.The Fourth Judicial Circuit Court of Dewey County, South Dakota, held a trial on her petition. The court granted her request for a family allowance but denied her petition for an elective share. The court found she voluntarily signed the agreement and that it was not unconscionable, emphasizing her education, business experience, and opportunity to review the agreement or consult independent counsel. The court also found that the financial disclosures provided were fair and reasonable, and that the terms of the agreement, including a provision for her in the event of divorce, were not disproportionate or unjust. Stephanie appealed the denial of her elective share.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that the prenuptial agreement was voluntarily executed and was not unconscionable under South Dakota law. It found no clear error in the circuit court’s factual findings and determined that the financial disclosure and circumstances surrounding execution of the agreement satisfied statutory requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed the validity and enforceability of the prenuptial agreement and the waiver of the elective share. View "Estate Of Webb" on Justia Law

Getty Images Holdings, Inc. became a publicly traded company after merging with CC Neuberger Principal Holdings II, a special purpose acquisition company. Alta Partners, LLC and CRCM Institutional Master Fund (BVI) Ltd., along with CRCM SPAC Opportunity Fund LP, acquired warrants to purchase Getty stock. The warrants’ exercise was governed by a warrant agreement requiring both an effective registration statement and a current prospectus for the underlying shares. After the merger, Getty filed two relevant registration statements: a Form S-4 and a Form S-1. Alta and CRCM attempted to exercise their warrants in August 2022, when Getty’s stock price was significantly higher than the warrant strike price, but Getty refused, claiming the contractual conditions for exercise were unmet.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed breach of contract claims brought by Alta and CRCM. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, finding as a matter of law that the conditions of the warrant agreement had been satisfied. Specifically, it held the Form S-4 was an effective registration statement for the warrant shares and the accompanying prospectus was current at the time the plaintiffs attempted to exercise their warrants. The court awarded damages based on the stock price at the time of the breach but limited Alta’s recovery, denying damages for warrants purchased after Getty’s refusal to honor the redemption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that Getty breached the warrant agreement because the required registration statement and prospectus conditions were met on the relevant dates. The court concluded that damages should be calculated using the market price of the shares at the time of breach and upheld the limitation on Alta’s damages for post-breach warrant purchases. The affirmance applies to all aspects of the district court’s rulings challenged on appeal. View "Alta Partners, LLC v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Several individuals who were employed by the City and County of San Francisco and were at least 40 years old when hired brought a class action lawsuit alleging that the City’s method for calculating disability retirement benefits under its retirement system discriminated against employees based on age. The system employs two formulas; Formula 1 is used if it yields a benefit exceeding a percentage threshold, while Formula 2 is used if the threshold is not met. Plaintiffs argued that Formula 2, which imputes years of service until age 60, resulted in lower benefits for those who entered the retirement system at age 40 or older, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).After initial proceedings in the San Francisco City and County Superior Court—including a demurrer sustained on statute of limitations grounds and subsequent reversal by the Court of Appeal—the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting FEHA claims for disparate treatment and disparate impact, as well as claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and equal protection violations. The trial court certified a class and denied summary judgment due to triable issues of fact. A bench trial followed, where both parties presented expert testimony on whether Formula 2 disparately impacted older employees.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s findings. It affirmed the judgment, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove intentional age discrimination or disparate impact under FEHA. The court found that Formula 2 was motivated by pension status and credited years of service, not by age, and that plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient as it was based on hypothetical calculations rather than actual data. The trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint after trial was also upheld, as any alleged error was not reversible on the record. The judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. View "Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Nicole Schuster, a mechanical engineer at the Naval Foundry and Propeller Center, led two Navy procurement projects for large machines known as vertical turning centers (VTCs) in 2017 and 2019. In 2017, she favored Company 1, which won the SU22 contract, while Company 2’s bid was rejected as technically unacceptable. In 2019, Schuster again favored Company 1 for the SU25 contract and, after learning Company 2 had bid, she disclosed Company 2’s confidential bid information from the earlier SU22 procurement to an employee of Company 1. This information included cost data and proprietary manufacturing details. Company 1 subsequently won the SU25 contract, with Company 2’s bid deemed too expensive.Schuster was charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with violating the Procurement Integrity Act, specifically 41 U.S.C. §§ 2102(a) and 2105(a), which prohibit disclosure of contractor bid or proposal information before the award of the procurement to which the information relates. Schuster pled guilty based on a plea agreement, which included a factual basis describing the machines as “virtually identical” but did not detail whether the information she disclosed was the same in substance as that submitted for the pending SU25 procurement. The District Court accepted her guilty plea and sentenced her to one year and one day in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case, applying plain error review to Schuster’s challenge to the sufficiency of the factual basis for her plea. The Court held that the District Court erred by accepting the guilty plea without sufficient facts to establish that the disclosed information related to the pending procurement as required by statute. The Third Circuit vacated Schuster’s conviction and sentence and remanded the case for repleading, rather than entering judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Schuster" on Justia Law

A woman with dementia became a resident at a memory care facility in Montana in June 2021. She died in November 2021 after suffering infections and complications. Her son, acting both individually and as personal representative of her estate, filed suit against the facility and related entities in November 2023, alleging claims including wrongful death, negligence, infliction of emotional distress, elder abuse, unjust enrichment, and contract rescission. The claims centered on allegations that the facility’s staff failed to provide adequate care, leading to the woman’s injuries and death. The original complaint, and a subsequent first amended complaint filed in November 2024, were never served on any defendant.The Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, dismissed all claims with prejudice in March 2025, finding that the son’s claims were medical malpractice actions subject to the two-year statute of limitations and six-month service requirement under Montana law. The court concluded that because the complaints were not timely served, and the amended complaint was filed after the statute of limitations had expired, the claims were time-barred. The court also rejected arguments that the filing of the original complaint tolled the statute or that the amended complaint related back to the original complaint.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the care-related claims (Counts I-VI) were medical malpractice claims subject to the statutory time limits and service requirements, and affirmed their dismissal as time-barred. However, the court found that the unjust enrichment and contract rescission claims (Counts VII and VIII) were not medical malpractice claims and were not subject to those limitations. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of those two counts and remanded for further proceedings solely on those claims. View "Estate of Athy v. Edgewood" on Justia Law

Matthew Metzler, an undergraduate student at Loyola University Chicago, was expelled in January 2017 after a university hearing board found him responsible for sexual misconduct involving another student, referred to as Jane Roe. The university’s Title IX process began after Roe reported feeling pressured into sexual acts without her consent. Initially, Roe declined to file a formal complaint, but later decided to do so after continuing distress. The university investigated, interviewed both parties, and considered evidence, including text messages and witness names provided by Metzler. The hearing board credited Roe’s account over Metzler’s based on the perceived consistency and credibility of her statements and found him responsible, resulting in expulsion. Metzler’s appeal was unsuccessful.Metzler filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, asserting claims under Title IX for unlawful sex discrimination and breach of contract due to alleged procedural irregularities in the disciplinary process. The district court granted summary judgment for Loyola, finding insufficient evidence that Metzler had been discriminated against based on sex or that contractual standards had been violated in a manner lacking rational basis. The case was briefly remanded for jurisdictional review and to determine anonymity, after which the district court reaffirmed its decision for Loyola.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that Metzler failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Loyola discriminated against him on the basis of sex under Title IX, even when considering generalized public pressure and procedural errors. The court further found that Metzler’s breach of contract claim failed because Loyola had a rational basis for its disciplinary decision. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Metzler v Loyola University Chicago" on Justia Law