Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal in this action alleging that Defendants entered into a lease-leaseback construction agreement in violation of various statutes and common law rules, holding that the specific lease-leaseback arrangement at issue in this case was not a "contract" within the meaning of Cal. Gov. Code 53511.Plaintiff brought this action alleging that the Fresno Unified School District and Harris Construction Co. entered into an unlawful lease-leaseback construction agreement. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a lease-leaseback arrangement in which construction is financed through bond proceeds, rather than through the builder, is a "contract" within the meaning of section 53511. The Supreme Court held that the lease-leaseback arrangement in this case was not a "contract" under the statute because (1) the underlying project was fully funded by a prior sale of general obligation bonds and payment of the debt service on the bonds was from ad valorem property taxes; and (2) therefore, payment did not dependent on the lease-leaseback arrangement or on completion of the project. View "Davis v. Fresno Unified School District" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division dismissing Plaintiffs' claims that Taxi and Limousine Commission and New York City breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and engaged in deceptive business practices under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349, holding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim.Plaintiffs, entities that purchased government licenses to operate taxis at an auction, brought this action alleging that Defendants (1) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to enforce certain licensing requirements against smartphone applicate-based competitors such as Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc.; and (2) engaged in deceptive business practices in their promotion of the auction. Supreme Court granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed in part and concluded that both claims should be dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs did not adequately plead a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (2) Plaintiffs failed to plead the type of conduct covered by N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349. View "Singh v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the circuit court failing to rule on Plaintiffs' contract claim, holding that the court of appeals correctly found that Plaintiffs waived their breach of contract claim.Plaintiffs, who leased property owned by Defendants, brought this action alleging wrongful eviction, breach of contract, and defamation. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the wrongful eviction claim and then dismissed Plaintiffs' defamation claims. The court of appeals affirmed and ruled that Plaintiffs waived their breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly held that Plaintiffs waived their contract claim. View "Wieland v. Freeman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an African American woman, worked as a conductor for Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). During her employment, she belonged to a division of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART) union, which maintained a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Amtrak. Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit pro se. She named Amtrak and the company’s director of employee relations as Defendants, along with three other Amtrak colleagues. Plaintiff asserted state-law claims of breach of contract and tort, as well as a federal claim of racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. Defendants moved to dismiss, and Plaintiff moved for summary judgment as well as for leave to amend her complaint. The district court granted Defendants’ motion and denied Plaintiff’s two motions. The district court held that Plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it declines to unwind a statutory scheme without a clear congressional directive to do so. Plaintiff argued that at least her particular claim is not a minor dispute. The mere fact that Plaintiff’s claim arises under Title VII does not disqualify that claim from being a minor dispute within the RLA’s ambit. The thrust of Plaintiff’s Title VII claim is that Amtrak deviated from its policies when dealing with her. While Plaintiff’s allegations as to her own treatment are factual, those concerning Amtrak’s policies directly implicate the relevant CBA between Plaintiff’s union, SMART, and Amtrak. That some of Plaintiff’s interpretive disagreements concern the Drug-Free Program does not alter the character of her claim. View "Dawn Polk v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a subcontractor for Forney Enterprises, a contractor working for the Pentagon. Forney Enterprises was bonded through the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Plaintiff worked as a project manager for Forney Enterprises, supervising others who engaged in manual labor. After Forney Enterprises’ work at the Pentagon was terminated, Plaintiff sued Fidelity to recover the value of the work he had not been paid for. The district court found that his supervisory work did not qualify as “labor” and granted summary judgment for Fidelity.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Under the Miller Act, contractors hired to work on government projects are required to furnish bonds to pay those who provided labor and were not paid as a result of a dispute. But not all work on a government project qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. And even when the work qualifies as labor, to claim his piece of the bond, a laborer must sue within one year of completing the labor to recover. Here, the court found that much of Plaintiff’s work was “labor,” the only work he performed within one year of filing suit, a materials inventory, was not “labor.” And no circumstances warrant estopping Fidelity from asserting the statute of limitations. View "Elliot Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company" on Justia Law

Current or former Uber drivers from different states agreed to Uber’s “Technology Services Agreement” as a condition of using Uber’s platform. The agreement requires drivers to resolve disputes with Uber on an individual basis through final and binding arbitration. Drivers may opt-out by sending Uber an email or letter. Singh’s class action alleged Uber had violated New Jersey wage and hour laws by misclassifying drivers as independent contractors, failing to pay them the minimum wage, and failing to reimburse them for business expenses. Calabrese’s class action, which was joined to Singh’s, sought to proceed collectively under the Fair Labor Standards Act.The district court ruled in Uber’s favor, compelling arbitration, having defined the relevant class as Uber drivers nationwide. The court found that interstate "rides constitute just 2% of all rides, resemble in character the other 98% of rides, and likely occur due to the happenstance of geography” for purposes of the exception in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) for arbitration agreements contained in the “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” 9 U.S.C. 1. The Third Circuit affirmed. The drivers' work is centered on local transportation. Most Uber drivers have never made an interstate trip. When Uber drivers do cross state lines, they do so only incidentally. They are not “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” View "Singh v. Uber Technologies, Inc" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the superior court denying Defendant's motion for a new trial after judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff, Ocean State Credit Union, in its action seeking money owed on a promissory note, holding that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence and was not otherwise clearly wrong.Defendant entered into an agreement to repay a $3,000 loan that he had received from Plaintiff. Plaintiff later brought this action seeking $2,250 owed on the promissory note plus contractual interest. Final judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial. When he learned the trial justice would hear the motion in Providence County instead of Kent County where the proceedings had previously been held, Defendant filed a motion to quash the change of venue. The trial justice denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial; and (2) Defendant's remaining contentions were without merit. View "Ocean State Credit Union v. Menge" on Justia Law

Olmsted Medical Center (“Olmsted”) provides preventive, primary, and specialty healthcare in southeastern Minnesota. Olmsted purchased a business property insurance policy from Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) for the period from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2021. The “Coverage” section of the policy states that it “insures against risks of direct physical loss of or damage to property and/or interests described herein at” Olmsted’s premises. Olmsted submitted a claim for losses it sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic under the insurance policy it held with Continental. Continental denied the claim two days later. Olmsted filed suit in Minnesota state court, alleging Continental breached the insurance contract when it refused to pay the claim. Olmsted requested damages and declaratory relief. After Olmsted filed its amended complaint, Continental filed a motion to dismiss. Continental argued, among other things, that Olmsted’s allegations did not implicate a “direct physical loss of or damage to” property; therefore, its claim for coverage did not fall within the policy’s language under any of the above provisions.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that although SARS-CoV-2 may have a “physical” element, it does not have a physical effect on real or personal property. Moreover, the business-interruption provision, however, expressly limits coverage to the “length of time as would be required . . . to rebuild, repair or replace” the affected property. Due to the fact that SARS-CoV-2 does not have an effect on the underlying property, the court did not see how to square Olmsted’s broader interpretation of the provision with the express time limitation. View "Olmsted Medical Center v. Continental Casualty Company" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court refusing to send the underlying rent dispute to arbitration and resolving the claim itself, holding that the dispute should be sent to arbitration.Landlord entered into a lease with Tenant providing that if Tenant defaulted Landlord shall submit such dispute to binding arbitration. When a dispute arose over water damage and withheld rent, litigation and arbitration resulted, with an arbitrator awarding judgment for Tenant. Thereafter, the trustee for several entities that held mortgages on the building brought a foreclosure action against Owner and appointed Receiver. When Tenant continued to refuse to pay rent, Receiver brought suit, and Tenant sought to send the dispute to arbitration. At issue was whether Receiver was bound by the lease's arbitration clause. The district court refused to send the dispute to arbitration and ruled that Tenant must make rent payments to Receiver. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly concluded that Receiver was subject to the arbitration agreement in the lease. View "Wilmington Trust, Nat'l Ass'n v. 700 Hennepin Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that the interpretation of a restrictive covenant was a question of fact for a jury, holding that because the evidence did not conclusively establish one covenanting party's intent in drafting the document at issue, the interpretation of the covenant was a question of fact for a jury.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the interpretation of an ambiguous restrictive land use covenant is a question for a jury unless extrinsic evidence proffered by the parties is conclusive as to the covenanting parties' intent; (2) a jury should strictly construe an ambiguity in a restrictive covenant against the land use restriction only if the jury is unable to resolve by a preponderance of the evidence the ambiguity from the extrinsic evidence; and (3) the court of appeals did not err in concluding that the extrinsic evidence in this case did not conclusively resolve the ambiguity in the restrictive covenant. View "Windcliff Ass'n v. Breyfogle" on Justia Law