Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The City of Los Angeles (City) entered into a contract with defendant and respondent PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (PWC) to modernize the billing system for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). PWC filed a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 of the Civil Discovery Act nine months after the case was dismissed with prejudice, seeking monetary sanctions for egregious misuse of the discovery process while the litigation was pending. The trial court awarded $2.5 million in sanctions. On appeal from the postjudgment order, in response to a letter from this court inviting additional briefing pursuant to Government Code section 68081, the sanctioned party contends the Discovery Act does not authorize the trial court to award monetary sanctions under section 2023.030 alone or together with section 2023.010.   The Second Appellate District reversed the postjudgment order and remanded the matter for the trial court to enter a new and different order on the issue of monetary sanctions based on discovery provisions authorizing the imposition of sanctions in this case. The court explained that although the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain PWC’s motion for sanctions and discretion to find it was timely filed, the order awarding sanctions must be reversed and remanded to allow the trial court to award PWC’s reasonable expenses incurred as a result of sanctionable conduct under provisions of the Discovery Act other than sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. View "City of L.A. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals reversing in part the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Barbourville on all of Plaintiff's claims holding that the reasoning of the trial court was sound.Plaintiff sustained burns on the bottom of her feet after visiting a water park owned by the City, requiring eventual amputation of a portion of her foot. Plaintiff sued the City, bringing claims under theories of premises liability, strict liability, and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on all claims. The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment on the premises liability claim and otherwise affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the City on Plaintiff's strict liability, breach of contract, and premises liability claims. View "City of Barbourville v. Hoskins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court in this action brought by Plaintiff to determine custody, child support, and shared parenting of the parties' child and on Defendant's counterclaim for breach of an implied contract and unjust enrichment, holding that the circuit court erred in part.In his counterclaim, Defendant argued that the parties had impliedly agreed that they would jointly own the marital home and that he would receive equity in the home acquired through his financial contributions toward the home mortgage. In response, Plaintiff claimed that she owned the home and that Defendant simply paid her rent while living there. The circuit court denied Defendant's claims, concluded that the parties' relationship was that of a landlord and tenant and awarded back rent, and determined shared child support and parenting issues. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) erred when it awarded Plaintiff back rent; (2) erred in determining the amount of back child support due; and (3) did not otherwise err or abuse its discretion. View "Murphey v. Pearson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court quashed the conclusion of the Second District Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's order denying Defendant Suarez Trucking's motion to enforce a settlement agreement with Plaintiff Adam Souders, holding that a binding settlement agreement was formed in this case.Plaintiff filed a tort action against Defendant. Plaintiff made an offer of settlement, and in response, Defendant filed a notice of acceptance. The Second District, however, concluded that Defendant could only manifest its acceptance of the offer by reciting back the offer's terms. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding that there was no basis to support the Section District's conclusion that a settlement contract could only be formed by performance or that Defendant's acceptance was otherwise defective. View "Suarez Trucking FL Corp. v. Souders" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the appellate division in this case, holding that an indemnification provision in the partnership agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant lacked express language or indicia of the parties' "unmistakably clear" intent to indemnify each other for attorney's fees in an action between them concerning the contract.After Defendant unsuccessfully brought a partnership dissolution action Plaintiff commenced this action seeking attorney's fees and costs incurred defending the dissolution action, claiming that Defendant waived the benefit of the American Rule, under which a prevailing party in litigation generally may not recover attorney's fees from the losing party, by agreeing to the indemnification provision in the parties' partnership agreement. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Defendant, and appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that nothing in the agreement made "unmistakably clear" that the partners intended to permit recovery for attorney's fees in an action between them on the contract. View "Sage Systems, Inc. v. Liss" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the delayed opening of an amusement park owned by Defendant caused by the government-mandated shutdown imposed by the state in response to the COVID-19 pandemic did not, by itself, establish a claim by a season-pass holder that Defendant breached the terms and conditions of the season pass it issued for the 2020 season.Plaintiff, a season-pass holder, brought this action asserting breach of contract and unjust enrichment for Defendant's failure to open its amusement parks in May and June 2020. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the parties were subject to the terms and conditions of the pass and that Defendant could not revoke the season pass without compensating Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) according to the terms and conditions tissue, Defendant could change its dates of operation without advance notice and close attractions for the government-mandated shutdown; and (2) therefore, Plaintiff's breach of contract action failed as a matter of law, and there was no unjust enrichment. View "Valentine v. Cedar Fair, L.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court determining that an auctioneer had verbally modified its advertised terms prior to the start of the auction and ordering the conveyance of a fee simple interest in a parcel of real property by special warranty deed to Plaintiff, holding that the circuit court erred.Plaintiff attended an auction advertised by Plaintiff for the sale of the property at issue. Plaintiff's bid was the high bid, but Defendants refused to sell the property for that amount. Plaintiff brought this complaint seeking specific performance, alleging that, in the pre-auction announcement, Defendants used language stating that the auction was going to be an absolute auction. The trial court ruled that Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance and ordered the conveyance of the property by special warranty deed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred in ruling that the auction was an absolute auction rather than an auction with reserve; and (2) therefore, no contract was formed between the parties. View "Williams v. Janson" on Justia Law

In 2012, a competitor sued Creation for trademark violations. Creation requested that Selective Insurance provide coverage. Selective refused. Creation’s settlement with its competitor prevented Creation from selling one of its primary lines. Creation struggled financially. Selective sought a declaration in Illinois state court that it had no duty to defend. Creation countersued and also alleged breach of the insurance policy. The Illinois court entered partial summary judgment for Creation on its duty-to-defend claim, limited to fees Creation incurred before the original trademark litigation was settled.In 2014—in the middle of the state-court litigation—Creation sued Selective in federal court for breach of contract and under the Illinois Insurance Code. In 2016, Creation voluntarily dismissed its state-court breach-of-contract claim with leave to refile. The Illinois court expressly reserved Creation’s right to maintain its federal action on its contract claim. After the 2017 state court award, the federal district court awarded Creation nearly $3 million in damages on the Insurance Code claim. After remand, Creation unsuccessfully sought to amend its complaint to seek punitive damages. The district court then concluded that the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion barred Creation’s remaining contract claim.The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that the case is an “anomaly.” The state court expressly reserved Creation’s right to file the claim in federal court, so the suit is not precluded by its earlier state-court litigation. View "Creation Supply, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Co. of the Southeast" on Justia Law

Michael O’Connor signed up for a loyalty program when he bought a pair of shoes and socks from Road Runner Sports, Inc. and Road Runner Sports Retail, Inc. (collectively, “Road Runner”). He alleged Road Runner did not tell him the loyalty program was an automatic renewal subscription and that his credit card would be charged an annual subscription fee. After discovering he had been charged for four years of subscription fees, he joined as the named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit alleging Road Runner had violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law and consumer protection statutes. Road Runner asserted O’Connor was bound by an arbitration provision it added to the online terms and conditions of the loyalty program, some three years after he enrolled. Although Road Runner conceded O’Connor did not have actual or constructive notice of the arbitration provision, it contended O’Connor created an implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate when he obtained imputed knowledge of the arbitration provision through his counsel in the course of litigation and failed to cancel his membership. The Court of Appeal disagreed this was sufficient under California law to prove consent to or acceptance of an agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying Road Runner’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Costa v. Road Runner Sports" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court dismissing Millard Gutter Company's suit against Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company without prejudice, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the first-party bad faith claims for lack of standing.After a storm, Millard Gutter obtained assignments of the right to insurance proceeds due under policies of Shelter. Thereafter, Millard filed suit against Shelter in its own name, as assignee, alleging breach of contract and first-party bad faith in failing to settle the claims. The district court granted Shelter's motion to dismiss, concluding that the complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to establish standing to assert first-party bad faith claims. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that Millard Gutter had stated a plausible claim for first-party bad faith. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Millard Gutter lacked standing to prosecute the policyholders' tort actions for first-party bad faith against Shelter. View "Millard Gutter Co. v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law