Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A medical device distributor sued a former employee, alleging that he breached a non-compete agreement, his duty of loyalty, and misappropriated trade secrets after joining a competitor. The employee responded with counterclaims and third-party claims. During the litigation, the employee filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which stayed the district court proceedings. In the bankruptcy case, the distributor filed a proof of claim for damages, which the employee did not contest. The bankruptcy court allowed the claim, and the distributor received a partial distribution from the bankruptcy estate. The employee also waived his right to discharge, leaving him potentially liable for the remaining balance.After the bankruptcy case closed, the United States District Court for the District of Vermont lifted the stay. The distributor sought summary judgment for the balance of its allowed claim, arguing that the bankruptcy court’s allowance of its claim should have preclusive effect. Initially, the district court denied this request, finding that using claim preclusion offensively would be unfair. Upon reconsideration, however, the district court reversed itself and granted summary judgment to the distributor for the remaining balance, holding that claim preclusion applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Second Circuit held that, even if claim preclusion could sometimes be used offensively, it could not be applied in this case because it would be unfair to the employee, who had less incentive to contest the claim in bankruptcy. The court vacated the district court’s judgment in favor of the distributor and remanded the case for further proceedings. The main holding is that claim preclusion cannot be used offensively to secure a judgment for the balance of an allowed bankruptcy claim under these circumstances. View "Thermal Surgical, LLC v. Brown" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a commercial property in Jackson, Mississippi, owned by Retro Metro, LLC. In 2011, the Jackson City Council authorized the mayor to negotiate and execute a lease with Retro Metro for office space in the former Metro Center Mall, with specific limitations on square footage, annual rent, and lease term. The City and Retro Metro executed a written lease in April 2011, and the City occupied the property. Over the years, the lease was the subject of multiple lawsuits between the parties, with the City previously admitting in court filings that it had entered into the lease. In 2023, after the City Council authorized the mayor to terminate the lease and vacate the premises, Retro Metro and its partners filed suit in federal court, alleging breach of contract and other claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment for the City, finding that the lease was unenforceable under Mississippi’s “minutes rule,” which requires that public board contracts be sufficiently detailed in the board’s official meeting minutes. The court also dismissed all claims against the individual defendants. Retro Metro appealed, challenging only the summary judgment on its breach of contract claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that the lease did not satisfy the minutes rule because the City Council’s minutes did not contain enough detail to establish the parties’ obligations and liabilities without resorting to other evidence. The court further held that judicial estoppel could not override the minutes rule under Mississippi law, and that the City’s failure to raise the minutes rule earlier did not constitute waiver, as the burden to show a valid contract rested with Retro Metro. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Retro Metro v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law

Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation and Venequip Machinery Sales Corporation Miami entered into an inventory loan agreement governed by Tennessee law, under which Venequip Miami could borrow funds by executing promissory notes. Venequip Miami executed six such notes, totaling approximately $4.77 million. The agreement specified that default would occur if Venequip Miami failed to repay principal or interest when due, or if there was a material adverse change in its financial condition. After a related affiliate defaulted on a separate loan in Curaçao, Caterpillar Financial declared an event of default under the inventory loan agreement, accelerated the debt, and demanded repayment. Venequip Miami did not repay, and Caterpillar Financial alleged that the outstanding amount exceeded $10 million.Caterpillar Financial filed a breach of contract suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Venequip Miami moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Caterpillar Financial failed to specify which provision of the inventory loan agreement was breached. The district court agreed, finding the complaint insufficient because it did not identify the specific provision breached among several possible events of default, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Caterpillar Financial’s subsequent motion to amend the judgment and file an amended complaint was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that under federal pleading standards, a breach of contract plaintiff is not required to identify the specific contractual provision breached, but must plausibly allege nonperformance. The court found that Caterpillar Financial’s complaint sufficiently alleged the existence of a contract, nonperformance by Venequip Miami, and resulting damages. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. v. Venequip Machinery Sales Corp." on Justia Law

Talisker Finance, LLC and its affiliates defaulted on a $150 million loan secured by real property, which they had borrowed to develop parcels in Utah. After several loan modifications and assignments, the lenders—Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Midtown Acquisitions L.P.—foreclosed on the collateral and purchased it at two sheriff’s sales, where they were the only bidders. The sale proceeds did not satisfy the debt, and the lenders continued to pursue the deficiency. Later, Talisker discovered information suggesting that the lenders, in coordination with a court-appointed receiver, may have taken actions to depress the sale price, including deterring potential bidders and bundling properties in a way that made them less attractive.Talisker filed suit in the Third District Court, Summit County, seeking equitable relief from the deficiency judgments, alleging that the lenders’ conduct during the foreclosure process violated Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 69B(d) and constituted fraud or grossly inequitable conduct. The lenders moved to dismiss, arguing that Talisker had broadly waived any rights or defenses related to the foreclosure process in the loan documents. The district court accepted Talisker’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but concluded that the waivers were enforceable and covered the rights Talisker sought to assert, including those under Rule 69B(d). The court found no unlawful irregularity in the sales and dismissed the complaint.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Talisker’s broad and explicit waivers in the loan documents encompassed all rights and defenses related to the foreclosure sales, including the right to challenge the method of sale or seek equitable relief based on alleged unfairness or irregularities. The court concluded that, regardless of the alleged conduct, Talisker had contractually relinquished any basis for relief. View "TALISKER PARTNERSHIP v. MIDTOWN ACQUISITIONS" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant hired the appellee, an attorney, in 2017 to represent her in a federal disability discrimination lawsuit against her former employer. The federal district court granted summary judgment to the employer on some claims and dismissed the remaining claim at the appellant’s request in May 2019, closing the case. Over three years later, in June 2022, the appellant filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging legal malpractice and breach of contract, claiming that the attorney’s deficient representation caused her to lose her federal case.The appellee moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The Superior Court initially denied the motion, suggesting that COVID-19 tolling orders might have paused the limitations period. However, after the appellant filed an amended complaint and the appellee renewed the motion to dismiss—which the appellant did not oppose—the court reconsidered and dismissed the complaint as untimely. The court found that the COVID-19 tolling orders did not apply because the limitations period did not expire during the relevant emergency period, and that the claims were time-barred under any possible accrual date. The appellant’s motion for reconsideration, based on excusable neglect due to personal issues, was denied.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The court held that the appellant’s claims were untimely under the applicable statute of limitations, that neither the COVID-19 tolling orders nor claims of excusable neglect, non compos mentis status, or the discovery rule justified tolling the limitations period, and that no extraordinary circumstances warranted relief under Rule 60(b)(1). The judgment of dismissal was affirmed. View "Baskin v. Pitre" on Justia Law

A company specializing in supply chain services, CAM, entered into negotiations with Rockwall, a corrugated packaging manufacturer, to provide warehousing services in Louisiana. The parties discussed terms, exchanged draft contracts, and CAM ultimately leased warehouse space for three years in anticipation of a long-term arrangement. However, neither party ever executed a written contract, and CAM began providing services and invoicing Rockwall monthly. Rockwall paid these invoices for over two years, but later terminated the relationship, citing changes in its business needs.CAM filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, alleging breach of contract and detrimental reliance. The district court found that while the parties had an oral agreement for warehousing services, there was no binding contract for a fixed three-year term because both parties intended to be bound only by a written, executed agreement. The court also held that CAM’s detrimental reliance claim failed, as it was unreasonable for CAM to rely on the existence of a three-year contract term when no such term was ever agreed upon, either orally or in writing. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rockwall and dismissed CAM’s claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that under Louisiana Civil Code article 1947, when parties contemplate a written contract, there is a presumption that they do not intend to be bound until the contract is executed in that form. The court found that this presumption was not rebutted by the parties’ conduct, including Rockwall’s payment of monthly invoices. The court also concluded that CAM failed to establish the elements of detrimental reliance, as there was no promise or representation by Rockwall of a fixed contract term. The summary judgment in favor of Rockwall was affirmed. View "CAM Logistics v. Pratt Industries" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress established the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to help eligible small businesses maintain payroll through government-mandated shutdowns. The program, administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), provided for government-guaranteed loans to qualifying businesses, with the possibility of loan forgiveness if certain conditions were met. Bruckner Truck Sales received a $10 million PPP loan, but the SBA later determined that Bruckner was not eligible for the loan. Despite conceding its ineligibility, Bruckner refused to return the funds and instead claimed entitlement to loan forgiveness under the CARES Act.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas reviewed the case after Bruckner challenged the SBA’s denial of forgiveness. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, holding that the CARES Act does not entitle ineligible borrowers to loan forgiveness. The court also denied Bruckner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding that the SBA’s interpretation of the statute was correct and that the agency’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the CARES Act limits loan forgiveness to borrowers who were eligible for the underlying PPP loan. The court rejected Bruckner’s arguments that the SBA’s rule was retroactive, that the agency violated the Chenery doctrine, and that the district court improperly deferred to the agency’s interpretation. The court concluded that neither the text nor the structure of the CARES Act supports forgiveness for ineligible borrowers, and affirmed the denial of loan forgiveness and the requirement to return the funds. View "Bruckner Truck Sales v. Guzman" on Justia Law

Several individuals formed a corporation, each contributing initial capital and later making additional cash contributions to meet the company’s needs. These later contributions were documented as promissory notes, including three notes issued to one founder, which were subsequently held by a trust after his death. The notes specified a 24-month term, a fixed interest rate, and repayment terms, but did not explicitly state they were payable on demand. After the founder’s death, the trust demanded payment on the notes, but the company refused, arguing the notes were not yet due, were actually capital contributions, or were subordinate to other shareholder loans.The District Court of Albany County dismissed claims by other shareholders seeking priority repayment, finding no justiciable controversy, and resolved the remaining issues on summary judgment. The court determined the notes were loans, not capital contributions, and that all founders’ notes should be repaid equitably if any were repaid. However, it found the notes were not immediately due and payable, as they lacked a demand provision, and denied the trust’s request for immediate payment. The court did award attorney fees to the trust under the terms of the notes.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s finding that the notes were not due and payable, holding that the notes matured after 24 months and were enforceable at that time. The court affirmed that the notes were loans, not capital contributions, and declined to give priority to other shareholder loans, finding no contractual basis for subordination. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees to the trust and upheld the dismissal of the other shareholders’ claims for lack of a justiciable controversy. The case was remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the trust and determination of reasonable attorney fees and costs. View "King v. Sheesley" on Justia Law

Two companies, HBKY and Elk River, each claimed rights to thousands of acres of timber in Kentucky based on their respective contracts with a third party, Kingdom Energy Resources. Kingdom had entered into a timber sales contract with Elk River, allowing Elk River to cut and remove timber from certain land. Separately, Kingdom obtained a $22 million loan from a group of lenders, with HBKY acting as their agent, and mortgaged several properties—including the timber in question—as collateral for the loan. Kingdom later breached both agreements: it ousted Elk River from the land, violating the timber contract, and defaulted on the loan, leaving both HBKY and Elk River with competing claims to the timber.After HBKY secured a judgment in a New York federal court declaring Kingdom in default, it registered the judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and initiated foreclosure proceedings on the collateral, including the timber. Elk River and its president, Robin Wilson, were joined as defendants due to their claimed interest. The district court granted summary judgment to HBKY, finding that Elk River did not obtain title to the timber under its contracts, did not have a superior interest, and was not a buyer in the ordinary course of business under Kentucky law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the loan documents did not authorize a sale of the timber free of HBKY’s security interest, as the mortgage explicitly stated that the security interest would survive any sale. The court also found that Elk River failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish its status as a buyer in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of HBKY. View "HBKY, LLC v. Elk River Export, LLC" on Justia Law

ADA Carbon Solutions (Red River), LLC ("ADA") filed a lawsuit against Atlas Carbon, LLC ("Atlas") in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Wyoming law. ADA claimed that Atlas breached their contract for the sale of activated carbon by improperly invoking the "Force Majeure" clause and failing to supply the agreed-upon quantity of carbon. ADA filed an amended complaint asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).The district court accepted jurisdiction and, after a bench trial, awarded ADA $76,000 in damages. ADA appealed the district court's judgment, dissatisfied with the method for calculating damages. During the appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals identified potential jurisdictional defects, specifically regarding the complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. The court ordered supplemental briefing to clarify the citizenship of Atlas's members, including trusts and limited partnerships involved.The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that it lacked sufficient information to determine whether complete diversity of citizenship existed at the time of filing. The court noted that Atlas's identification of its members, including trusts and limited partnerships, was incomplete and did not provide adequate information about their citizenship. Consequently, the court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court to make the necessary factual findings to determine whether it had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The district court was instructed to analyze the citizenship of all members of ADA and Atlas, tracing through all layers of ownership to ensure complete diversity. View "ADA Carbon Solutions (Red River) v. Atlas Carbon" on Justia Law