Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals reformulated a question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and concluded that Plaintiff's allegations did not state a cognizable cause of action for breach of the implied contract of good faith and fair dealing.At issue was whether Plaintiff sufficiently pled a cause of action for breach of the implied contract under New York law by alleging that, during a Structured Settlement Protection Act proceeding, the structured settlement obligor and the issuer of an annuity funding the settlement failed to enforce the anti-assignment provisions contained in structured settlement and qualified assignment agreements. The Court of Appeals answered the question, as reformulated, in the negative, holding that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving an implied promise in this case. View "Cordero v. Transamerica Annuity Service Corp." on Justia Law

In this dispute between two Major League Baseball (MLB) teams and their co-owned regional sports network the Court of Appeals affirmed as modified the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the confirmation of a second arbitration award and directed that a money judgment be vacated, holding that the highly sophisticated parties were bound to the terms of their agreement.In this dispute regarding the fair market value of certain telecast rights Plaintiffs sought to vacate an arbitration award granted by the MLB's Revenue Sharing Definitions Committee (RSDC). Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award based on the RSDC's evident partiality, and the appellate division affirmed. After a second hearing, the RSDC entered a second award. Supreme Court affirmed, and the appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) the courts below correctly confirmed the second arbitration award; and (2) the order must be modified because Supreme Court erred by awarding prejudgment interest and rendering a money judgment. View "TCR Sports Broadcasting Holding, LLP v. WN Partner, LLC" on Justia Law

For pressing projects, the government can issue “Undefinitized Contract Actions” (UCAs) to allow contractors to begin work before the parties have reached a final agreement on contract terms, like price. The Air Force entered into two UCAs with Lockheed for upgrades to F-16 aircraft. Both UCAs include “definitization” clauses that provide that if the parties are unable to reach agreements on price by a certain time, the Contracting Officer (CO) may determine a reasonable price. After years of negotiations, the Air Force and Lockheed were unable to agree on the price terms. The CO assigned to each UCA unilaterally definitized a price of about $1 billion.The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), acting under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), dismissed appeals for lack of jurisdiction because Lockheed failed to submit a certified contractor claim to the COs requesting a final decision on its claims as required under the CDA. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Lockheed’s argument that the COs’ unilateral definitizations qualified as government claims under the CDA, which a contractor can directly appeal to the ASBCA without having to submit its own claim to the COs. The COs’ definitizations of the contract prices were not demands or assertions by the government seeking relief against Lockheed. View "Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force" on Justia Law

When she was hired by Kindercare, Westmoreland signed a “Mutual Arbitration Agreement Regarding Wages and Hours,” including a “Waiver of Class and Collective Claims” and a “Savings Clause & Conformity Clause,” stating that if the Waiver of Class and Collective Claims is found to be unenforceable, the agreement is invalid and any claim brought on a class, collective, or representative action basis must be filed in court. Kindercare terminated Westmoreland. She filed suit asserting violations of the Labor Code, on an individual and class action basis. Kindercare successfully moved to compel arbitration of Westmoreland’s individual non-PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) claims, and to stay her PAGA claim. The court of appeal concluded that the unenforceable PAGA waiver was not severable and rendered the entire agreement unenforceable. The California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Kindercare’s petitions for review. Kindercare filed a “Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration of Non-PAGA Claims and Stay PAGA Claims Based on New Law” citing a July 2021 California decision, “Western Bagel.”The court of appeal affirmed, noting that an order denying a renewed motion is not appealable but exercising its discretion to hear the matter as a petition for writ of mandate. Western Bagel is not “new law” that justifies a different decision. As a consequence of Kindercare’s drafting decisions, the agreement is invalid by operation of the unambiguous “Savings Clause and Conformity Clause.” Kindercare must litigate all of Westmoreland’s claims in court. View "Westmoreland v. Kindercare Education LLC" on Justia Law

Epic Games, Inc. sued Apple, Inc. pursuant to the Sherman Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Epic contends that Apple acted unlawfully by restricting app distribution on iOS devices to Apple’s App Store, requiring in-app purchases on iOS devices to use Apple’s in-app payment processor, and limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users. Apple counter-sued for breach of contract and indemnification for its attorney fees arising from this litigation.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment, after a bench trial, against Epic Games on its Sherman Act claims for restraint of trade, tying, and monopoly maintenance against Apple, Inc.; in favor of Epic on its UCL claim; against Epic on Apple’s claim for breach of contract; and against Apple on its claim for attorney fees. The panel affirmed except for the district court’s ruling respecting attorney fees, where it reversed and remanded for further proceedings.   The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of antitrust liability and its corresponding rejection of Epic’s illegality defense to Apple’s breach of contract counter-claim. The panel held that the district court erred as a matter of law in defining the relevant antitrust market, but those errors were harmless. The panel held that independent of the district court’s errors, Epic failed to establish, as a factual matter, its proposed market definition and the existence of any substantially less restrictive alternative means for Apple to accomplish the procompetitive justifications supporting iOS’s walled garden ecosystem. View "EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE, INC." on Justia Law

Louis DeGidio, the father of Plaintiffs, began purchasing, distributing, and servicing Industrial Combustion, LLC’s (“IC”) burners for institutional boiler systems in a sales area including most of Minnesota. IC’s non-exclusive distributors are responsible for installing and servicing the IC burners they sell. In 1996, the family incorporated Louis DeGidio, Inc. (“LDI”) and Louis DeGidio Services, Inc. (“LDSI”). LDI continued purchasing burners from IC. LDSI installed and serviced the burners LDI sold, purchasing replacement parts from IC. The two corporations shared the same location, officers, and shareholders. Plaintiffs were joint 50% shareholders and key officers of both. Whatever written agreement was then in effect is not in the record, but it is undisputed that LDI was the distributor. At issue is whether a manufacturer collects an indirect “franchise fee” within the meaning of the Minnesota Franchise Act if it charges the distributor a price based on the retail price the manufacturer paid a third-party vendor for the parts.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed and agreed with the district court the answer is clearly no, and therefore, the distributorship agreement here at issue was not a franchise. The court further agreed that the manufacturer did not breach an oral implied-in-fact contract and was not barred by promissory estoppel when it terminated the DeGidio sales representative without cause. Applying Minnesota law and reviewing de novo, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of IC and its parent company, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. View "Louis DeGidio, Inc. v. Industrial Combustion, LLC" on Justia Law

This appeal arises from litigation involving a public construction project to build the Central Region 9th Street Span K-8 school in downtown Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD or District) and Suffolk Construction Company, Inc. (Suffolk), entered into a development and construction agreement (contract), for the development and building of the school. Suffolk later entered into subcontracts with various subcontractors, including R.J. Daum Construction Company (Daum) and Fisk Electric Company (Fisk). Throughout the project, various problems arose, which caused delay and disruption and resulted in increased costs to Suffolk, Daum and Fisk. Suffolk sued LAUSD, alleging breach of the contract, implied contractual indemnity, and seeking declaratory relief. The jury found that Suffolk substantially performed its contract and that LAUSD breached the implied warranty of correctness by providing plans and/or specifications for the concrete footing design that was not correct. Further, the jury determined Suffolk’s damages for the concrete issue decided in phase 1 (TIA 5).   The Second Appellate District found that the phase 1 verdict must be reversed and remanded for retrial on the ground that the special jury instruction based on Public Contract Code section 1104 was improper. The reversal of the phase 1 liability verdict requires that the phase 2 trial of damages for TIA 5 (related to the concrete cracking issue) must also be reversed and remanded for retrial. Finally, the court held that the trial court erred in granting JNOV on the phase 2 jury verdict. Thus, the decision granting the JNOV is reversed with direction to reinstate the jury verdict on that issue. View "Suffolk Construction Co. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed an online arbitration agreement before starting work at a car dealership. He had to sign if he wanted a job: the car dealership presented it as a take-it-or-leave-it mandatory condition. Plaintiff signed the arbitration contract, and the dealership hired him. The employment relationship turned out to be unsuccessful: Plaintiff sued the dealership for firing him. The dealership moved to compel arbitration. The trial court ruled the arbitration contract was unconscionable.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court held that Plaintiff suffered no substantive unconscionability, which is indispensable to the unconscionability defense. The court held that, to some extent, the contract-at-issue seems to be a common form, at least for some car dealerships. Second, all four agreements containing the arbitration clauses extended for more than a page of print. Third, the font size and functional readability of the contracts here did not seem to trouble Plaintiff.   Further, the court explained that Plaintiff argues this language implies to laypeople that it bars filing a charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court found that Plaintiff’s argument fails on two counts. As Plaintiff himself notes, there is clear language to the contrary: “I understand and agree that nothing in this agreement shall be construed so as to preclude me from filing any administrative charge with, or from participating in any investigation of a charge conducted by, any government agency such as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and/or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” More fundamentally, arguments about prolix legalese go to procedural and not substantive unconscionability. View "Basith v. Lithia Motors, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement with Empire Nissan, Inc. Nissan fired Fuentes, she sued, and Nissan moved to compel arbitration. The trial court found the arbitration agreement unconscionable and denied the motion.   The Second Appellate District reversed and directed the trial court to compel arbitration, holding that this contract lacks substantive unconscionability. The court explained that Plaintiff must show both procedural and substantive unconscionability to establish the defense. These two elements need not be present to the same degree. Rather we evaluate them on a sliding scale. The more substantively oppressive the contract terms, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to conclude that the contract is unenforceable. Conversely, the more deceptive or coercive the bargaining tactics employed, the less substantive unfairness is required. The court explained that tiny and unreadable print indeed is a problem, but is a problem of procedural unconscionability. Accordingly, the court explained that it cannot double count it as a problem of substantive unconscionability. View "Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc." on Justia Law

A False Claims Act qui tam action was filed under seal against SHH and its nursing facilities, alleging that SHH provided unreasonable and unnecessary services to claim the highest possible Medicare reimbursement. Three co-relators also alleged that SHH retaliated against them for internally reporting fraudulent billing practices. SHH received a Department of Justice notification that it was the subject of a fraudulent claims investigation, requesting information about recent terminations of SHH employees, including the relators. It did not explicitly refer to the retaliation allegations.Two years later, SHH obtained liability coverage. Allied's claims-made policy applies only to claims first made during the policy period. SHH's application checked "none" when asked to “provide full details of all inquiries, investigations, administrative charges, claims, and lawsuits filed” within the last three years. SHH checked “no” to whether “[SHH], any Subsidiary, any Executive or other entity proposed for coverage kn[ew] of any act, error or omission which could give rise to a claim, suit or action.” An application exclusion, incorporated into the policy, stated that if such information existed, any inquiry, investigation, administrative charge, claim, or lawsuit arising therefrom or arising from such violation, knowledge, information, or involvement is excluded from coverage.The qui tam action was unsealed. SHH notified Allied and sought coverage for defense costs. Allied denied coverage. SHH sued. SHH later settled the relators' retaliation claim ($2.2 million) and finalized a $10 million settlement for the claims-submissions violations. The district court granted SHH partial summary judgment, awarding $2,336,786.35. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The plain language of SHH’s policy excluded coverage. View "SHH Holdings, LLC v. Allied World Specialty Ins. Co." on Justia Law