Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief in this case concerning a premarital agreement to resolve disputes by binding arbitration under religious law, holding that the trial court was statutorily required to hear and determine Wife's challenges to the agreement's validity and enforceability before referring the parties' disputes to arbitration.When the parties in this case married they signed an "Islamic Pre-Nuptial Agreement" providing that "[a]ny conflict which may arise between the husband and the wife will be resolved according to the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic Law in a Muslim court, or in [its] absence by a Fiqh Panel." When Wife sued for divorce, Husband moved to enforce the agreement. After a hearing on whether the reference to Islamic law was sufficiently ambiguous to render the agreement unenforceable the trial court ordered the parties to arbitrate under the agreement. Wife moved for mandamus relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court erred in compelling the parties to arbitrate. View "In re Mariam Ayad" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded this matter for a new trial, holding that the district court erred in proceeding to a trial without a jury on Plaintiff's causes of action for breach of contract, breach of guaranty, and unjust enrichment.Plaintiff's brought this complaint against Defendants for, among other causes of action, forcible entry and detainer. The district court granted relief on the forcible entry and detainer claim, ordering restitution. After a bench trial, the district court heard the remaining causes of action and awarded damages to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) Plaintiff's remaining causes of action were legal in nature, and the issues of fact that arose thereunder entitled Defendants to a jury trial unless waived; and (2) there was no waiver of Defendants' right to a jury trial. View "132 Ventures, LLC v. Active Spine Physical Therapy, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court awarding Defendant an additional $9,000 in attorney fees and $162 in costs in a second appeal after the first appeal resulted in an award of attorney fees and costs for Defendant totaling $26,413, holding that there was no error and that the award of attorney fees was proper.Plaintiff sued for unlawful detainer, breach of lease, and unjust enrichment. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant but denied Defendant's request for attorney fees. The court of appeals reversed the ruling on attorney fees. On remand, the district court awarded Defendant attorney fees and costs totaling $26,413. The court of appeals affirmed. On remand, the district court awarded Defendant additional attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed and granted Defendant's request for attorney fees incurrent on appeal, holding that Defendant was properly awarded his attorney fees in the district court and that Defendant was entitled to reasonable attorney fees that he incurred in defending against this appeal. View "Gardiner v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this action to foreclose a materialmen's lien to recover for material and labor Ed Suvada expended in renovating a cabin for George and Christine Muller, holding that their was no error.Suvada brought this action to foreclose his materialmen's lien on the Muller property and also alleged breach of contract. The Mullers counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and fraud. A jury awarded Suvada damages on his materialmen's lien claim and in favor of the Mullers on both of their claims but awarded damages only on the breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion. View "Suvada v. Muller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court granting a directed verdict on a bad faith claim, holding that Wittmer v. Jones, 864 S.W.2d 885, 890 (Ky. 1993), established the applicable legal standard for both common law and statutory bad-faith claims.Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) brought a declaratory judgment action disputing coverage under a commercial general liability policy insuring K-2 Catering, LLC for claims Haley Belt made stemming from an accident that occurred during an event hosted by K-2's member-managers at their residence. Ultimately, judgment was entered declaring coverage under the policy. While the action was pending, Belt brought a separate action against K-2 and CIC, alleging bad faith and negligence in the settlement of her claims under K-2's policy. The negligence claims were settled and, after a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict against CIC. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred when it failed to grant CIC a directed verdict on the bad faith claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court erred when it failed to apply the Wittmer standard and grant a directed verdict for CIC. View "Belt v. Cincinnati Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Bernell Beco filed suit against his former employer, defendant Fast Auto Loans, Inc. (Fast Auto) alleging 14 causes of action relating to the termination of his employment. Plaintiff alleged causes of action under with), including claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), numerous wage and hour violations under the Labor Code, wrongful termination, unfair competition, and additional tort claims. Fast Auto moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Beco had signed a valid arbitration agreement at the time he was hired. The trial court found the agreement unconscionable to the extent that severance would not cure the defects and declined to enforce it. After its review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the agreement was unconscionable, and further rejected Fast Auto’s argument that the arbitrator, not the court, should have decided the issue of unconscionability. Additionally, because the agreement included numerous substantively unconscionable provisions, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision not to sever them. View "Beco v. Fast Auto Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Thomas Thai and defendant Newton Tran were partners in Richmond City Center, LP et al. (Richmond). Plaintiff agreed to sell defendant his 20.5 percent interest in Richmond. The parties signed a sales agreement in April 2019, in which plaintiff assigned defendant his interest in Richmond. A few months after the sales agreement was executed, plaintiff filed the underlying lawsuit against defendant, generally complaining that defendant still owed a portion of the purchase price, and asserted breach of contract and fraud claims. Defendant filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff, seeking declaratory relief, reformation, and rescission. Plaintiff issued two subpoenas: (1) a Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents to Ha Mach, Richmond’s property manager; and (2) a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Tien Van, Richmond’s accountant. Both subpoenas sought Richmond’s consumer records, so plaintiff served Richmond with a notice to consumer for each subpoena per California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3. Richmond served objections to each subpoena. Neither Mach nor Van produced any records due to Richmond’s objections. Nearly two months after Richmond served the objections, plaintiff filed motions to compel Mach and Van to comply with the subpoenas and produce the requested records under section 2025.480. Plaintiff also requested sanctions against Richmond and its attorneys. Defendant opposed the motions, but Richmond did not. The trial court granted the motions and awarded plaintiff $1,245 in sanctions against Richmond and its attorneys. Richmond appealed, arguing: (1) plaintiff’s motions to compel were brought under the wrong section of the Code of Civil Procedure and were untimely; and (2) even if the motions were timely, sanctions were improper because it did not oppose the motions. The Court of Appeal agreed with defendant’s first argument and found the trial court erred by granting the motions: after the twenty-day deadline expires, the subpoenaing party cannot move to enforce the subpoena over the objection through a motion to compel under section 2025.480, which has a 60-day deadline. View "Thai v. Richmond City Center, L.P." on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed in part the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against Stonehill College for breach of contract, sex discrimination in violation of Title IX, negligence, and defamation, holding that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.Plaintiff brought this complaint after he was expelled for violating Stonehill College's sexual misconduct policy by engaging in "nonconsensual sexual intercourse," alleging that the disciplinary process in his case was unfair and biased. The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff stated a breach of contract claim under both theories available to him under Massachusetts law; and (2) Plaintiff's remaining claims failed to state a claim. View "Doe v. Stonehill College, Inc." on Justia Law

North American issued two insurance policies for the life of J.C. On November 9, 2018, it issued a policy that named an irrevocable trust managed by the trustee as beneficiary. It issued a policy that named J.C.’s wife, as beneficiary. Each contained an essentially identical clause that excluded suicide from coverage under the policy. That clause read, “SUICIDE — If the Insured commits suicide, while sane or insane, within two years from the Policy Date, Our liability is limited to an amount equal to the total premiums paid.” In a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, the beneficiaries argued that “the entire lawsuit is predicated on [North American’s] erroneous position that the contract term ‘suicide’ is synonymous with the expression ‘suicide by cop,’ which is a term of art that actually refers to justifiable homicide.” The district court agreed that “[t]he plain meaning of the term ‘suicide’ encompasses the act of killing oneself—not the killing of a person by another” and granted the motion.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded finding that the ordinary meaning of “suicide” includes suicide-by-cop. The court explained that here, where the beneficiaries agree with the allegations in North American’s complaint due to the procedural posture of the case, no factual question exists. The ordinary meaning of “suicide” certainly covers J.C.’s specific behavior in pointing his gun at police officers to provoke them into shooting and killing him as part of his plan to end his own life. Thus, the district court erred in ruling to the contrary. View "North American Company for Life and Health Insurance v. Michelle Caldwell, et al" on Justia Law

In 2006, Price approached Marcone about using e-commerce in the appliance parts industry. Price and Marcone entered into a non-disclosure agreement while evaluating the concept, but no partnership resulted. Price then created PartScription. Both companies sell appliance replacement parts online. In 2017, Price restarted talks with Marcone. In 2018, Marcone’s CEO proposed that PartScription and Marcone form a “50-50” partnership. Price accepted, and they shook hands on the idea. Price drafted a term sheet for the contemplated partnership. The first line sheet states “PartScription and Marcone (PSM) have agreed to form a partnership/joint venture to serve the independent hardware industry.” Negotiations continued. During a conference call, Marcone representatives purportedly “stated that they approved of the terms,” and offered one change regarding a joint bank account. Days later Price sent a follow-up email saying that his notes indicated “Marcone ha[d] approved the terms outlined in the draft PSM term sheet” and asking whether they needed to memorialize the agreement. No further memorialization took place. Marcone's representatives became unresponsive.In 2021, PartScription filed suit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. PartScription’s complaint fails to plausibly allege a valid contract; any amendment would be futile. The only documentation speaks of general goals— not obligations—and fails to identify definite and certain binding terms. View "KAP Holdings, LLC v. Mar-Cone Appliance Parts Co." on Justia Law