Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

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

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