Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The case centers on a dispute involving a pharmaceutical company founded by the plaintiff, who also served as its CEO. The plaintiff obtained investment from a Canadian entity controlled by one of the defendants, who later became a director. The company entered into a profitable licensing agreement for a drug, and the plaintiff claims he was personally entitled to 30% of the profits based on an oral agreement. The investor and his affiliates, however, allege that the plaintiff wrongfully diverted corporate assets by taking this share. After disagreements arose, the investor replaced himself and another director on the board with officers from his own affiliates, who began investigating the alleged diversion. In response, the plaintiff initiated litigation, asserting that the investigation was a breach of fiduciary duty and that the investor and his affiliates acted in bad faith for their own benefit.Previously, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware was asked to consider several claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference against the investor, his affiliates, and the two new directors. The investor’s affiliate moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the court found it had no jurisdiction over the affiliate. The court also examined whether it had jurisdiction over the investor for claims other than those related to his service as a director, finding it did not because the complaint failed to state a viable claim against him in that capacity.In the present decision, the Court of Chancery held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the investor’s affiliate and over the investor in his non-director capacities, dismissing those claims without prejudice. The court further dismissed with prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy claims against the directors and the investor in his director capacity, finding no viable claims were stated. However, the court allowed the plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory judgment regarding his right to the profits from the drug to proceed against the company, provided an amended complaint is filed naming the company as a proper defendant. View "MacLaughlan v. Einheiber" on Justia Law

H.A.T., LLC entered into a bond-for-deed contract with Greenleaf Apartments, LLC to purchase three buildings in Portland for $1 million, with a down payment and monthly installments. H.A.T. took possession but would not receive title until the note was fully paid, and the parties executed additional agreements to address Greenleaf's concerns and clarify remedies for default. Over time, H.A.T. became delinquent in its payments, and Greenleaf lent additional funds to cover repairs after a series of casualty events. Despite proposals to consolidate debts and efforts to sell the property, H.A.T. remained in default. Greenleaf ultimately exercised its right under a memorandum agreement to terminate the contract without notice upon default, retaking possession of the property.H.A.T. then filed suit in the Maine Business and Consumer Docket, alleging various claims, including breach of contract and entitlement to insurance proceeds, while Greenleaf counterclaimed for breach of contract. The court dismissed claims against Greenleaf's counsel and, after a bench trial, ruled in favor of Greenleaf on all claims. The court found that H.A.T. had defaulted on payment obligations, that Greenleaf was justified in terminating the contract, and that H.A.T. was not entitled to insurance proceeds or a setoff. The final judgment awarded Greenleaf costs and attorney fees.On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment. The Court held that H.A.T. breached the contract by missing payments, Greenleaf had no obligation to provide H.A.T. with insurance proceeds, and H.A.T. was not entitled to notice of a right to cure because the statutory notice provision for foreclosures did not apply to commercial purchasers like H.A.T. The court concluded the statute was intended to protect homeowners, not commercial investors. Judgment was affirmed. View "H.A.T., LLC v. Greenleaf Apartmetns, LLC" on Justia Law

The case concerns a failed sale of a bar and restaurant in Bismarck, North Dakota. Neil Galpin, as assignee of Galpin Entertainment, sought to recover a $100,000 earnest money deposit after Cantina Holdings, LLC and Clay Butte Holdings, LLC (the buyers) did not complete the purchase. The parties had executed a confidential offer letter, which required the deposit and stated it would become non-refundable after the buyer’s due diligence period expired, unless the buyer notified the seller of its intent not to proceed before that date. Later, the parties signed a standard form purchase agreement that both incorporated the confidential letter and included a conflicting, pre-printed provision stating that if financing failed after a certain date, the earnest money would be returned to the buyer. The transaction never closed, and Galpin Entertainment ultimately sold the property to someone else.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, heard the case in a bench trial. The court concluded that the specially drafted provision in the confidential letter, rather than the standard form language in the purchase agreement, controlled the disposition of the earnest money. It found that the buyers did not properly exercise their right to terminate before the due diligence deadline and that Galpin did not breach the contract by failing to negotiate the contract for deed in good faith. Judgment was entered in favor of Neil Galpin for the earnest money, and the buyers’ counterclaims were denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that, when conflicting contract provisions exist, specially drafted terms control over standard form language, especially where the parties who caused the uncertainty seek to benefit from it. The court also found no clear error in the district court’s finding that Galpin negotiated in good faith. View "Galpin v. Cantina Holdings" on Justia Law

A financial advisor sold her company to a buyer, with a portion of the purchase price to be paid up front and the remainder in quarterly installments. When the buyer failed to make the scheduled payments, the seller initiated arbitration through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), as required by their agreement. The arbitration panel found the buyer in default and awarded damages to the seller. The buyer then sought to vacate the arbitration award in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, arguing that one of the arbitrators had “evident partiality” due to undisclosed past connections with the seller and her company.The circuit court reviewed the motion to vacate and applied the “evident partiality” standard as interpreted by the Fourth Circuit in ANR Coal Co., Inc. v. Cogentrix of N.C., Inc., and denied the motion, finding no clear evidence of bias. The buyer appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The appellate court concluded that the arbitrator’s prior connections with the seller and her company were too remote and insubstantial to suggest partiality, and that the undisclosed interactions did not create an appearance of bias that would require vacatur of the award.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case to clarify the standard for “evident partiality” under the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act. The court held that, to vacate an arbitration award for evident partiality, a party must objectively show that a reasonable person, knowing all relevant facts, would perceive the arbitrator’s conduct as obvious bias against that party. Applying this standard, the Supreme Court of Virginia found that the arbitrator’s remote and inconsequential past connections did not meet this threshold. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings regarding attorney fees. View "Garofalo v. Di Vincenzo" on Justia Law

A physician employed by a medical group entered into an employment agreement that included a noncompete clause prohibiting him from working for a competing healthcare organization within a specified geographic area for one year after leaving his position. After learning that the physician planned to join a competitor, the employer warned him that doing so would violate his contract. Nevertheless, after his employment ended, the physician began working for the competing medical group, which was a subsidiary of a hospital authority created by statute. The employer then sued the physician for breach of contract and the competitor for tortious interference with contract.The Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk considered only the pleadings and granted the competitor’s plea of sovereign immunity, dismissing the action against it with prejudice. The court adopted the argument that, as a subsidiary of the hospital authority, the competitor automatically shared in the authority’s sovereign immunity and was therefore immune from suit.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case de novo, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true. The Court held that a subsidiary or agent of an immune entity does not automatically share the principal’s sovereign immunity. Instead, whether a corporate agent shares in the principal’s immunity depends on the specific facts and circumstances, analyzed under a four-factor test articulated in prior Virginia cases. Because the record lacked sufficient facts to determine the competitor’s entitlement to immunity and because the competitor bore the burden of establishing such entitlement, the Supreme Court of Virginia concluded that the circuit court erred by sustaining the plea of sovereign immunity. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Sentara Medical Group v. Klena" on Justia Law

A tenant and her adult son rented a house in Arlington, Virginia, for a year. Several months into the lease, they noticed water leaking through a skylight and informed the landlord. The landlord and a contractor inspected the skylight and confirmed it was leaking, but no repairs were made. After a period of snow and rain, the tenant slipped on water that had accumulated from the leak, suffering significant injuries. She then sued the landlord, alleging breach of contract for failing to complete repairs as required by the lease and state law, and common-law negligence in failing to take steps to prevent injury from the leak.The landlord removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which treated the landlord’s demurrer as a motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed the negligence claim, finding the complaint did not allege that the landlord or contractor undertook repairs or performed any negligent acts—only that they inspected and confirmed the leak. The court concluded Virginia law does not impose a tort duty on landlords for failing to repair, but only for negligent acts in the course of repair. The breach of contract claim survived the motion to dismiss, but the parties later stipulated to voluntarily dismiss it to allow an immediate appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit first determined it had appellate jurisdiction, accepting the tenant's binding representation that she was abandoning the contract claim with prejudice. The court then affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the negligence claim. It held that, under Virginia law, a landlord is not liable in tort for failing to make repairs unless the landlord undertakes repairs and does so negligently. Because the complaint did not allege any negligent repair or positive act, only nonfeasance, the negligence claim failed as a matter of law. View "Metz v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

A company operating a private detention facility in Colorado under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was sued in a class action by a former detainee. The lawsuit challenged two of the company’s work policies for detainees: a sanitation policy that required unpaid cleaning under threat of punishment, and a voluntary work program offering minimal pay. Plaintiffs alleged that the sanitation policy violated federal anti-forced-labor laws and that the voluntary work program constituted unjust enrichment under Colorado law.After discovery, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado considered the company’s argument that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., it could not be held liable for conduct that the government had lawfully “authorized and directed.” The District Court concluded that the government contract did not instruct the company to adopt the specific work policies at issue and that the company had developed those policies on its own. Therefore, the court held that the Yearsley doctrine did not shield the company from liability and allowed the case to proceed to trial.The company appealed immediately, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a denial of Yearsley protection is not subject to interlocutory appeal under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s decision, holding that Yearsley provides a merits defense, not an immunity from suit. Therefore, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection cannot be immediately appealed; any review must wait until after final judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal" on Justia Law

A Montana limited liability company and its sole member obtained a $450,000 loan secured by real property from a lender affiliated with New York-based entities. The loan documents included a promissory note, guaranty, and deed of trust, all referencing the lender as Axos Bank, though the servicing and assignment of the loan eventually resided with the lender’s subsidiaries. The loan imposed a high annual interest rate, and after the company defaulted, the property was sold. The borrower alleges it paid more than twice the loan amount and asserts that the lender’s arrangement with Axos Bank was a scheme to avoid Montana’s usury laws.The borrowers sued in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, seeking, among other relief, a declaration that the lender—not Axos Bank—was the true lender and subject to Montana usury law. The lender moved to dismiss and compel arbitration under the arbitration provisions in the loan documents. The District Court considered extrinsic evidence, including the borrower’s declaration, and found that the arbitration provisions conflicted with bold, capitalized jury trial waiver language, resulting in ambiguity. The District Court determined that the borrower had not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived its constitutional right of access to the courts, denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the lender appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the loan documents were ambiguous due to conflicting provisions regarding dispute resolution, and that such ambiguity prevented the borrower from giving the required knowing, voluntary, and intelligent consent to arbitrate and waive constitutional rights. As a result, the arbitration provisions were held unenforceable, and the District Court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Bluebird v. World Business Lenders" on Justia Law

Four brothers who had previously formed a diamond partnership later entered into an oral agreement in 1995 with a fifth brother to create a separate real estate partnership. The agreement was never reduced to writing, consistent with family custom. Over several years, the brothers jointly acquired and managed a large portfolio of California real estate. Tensions arose after the original real estate owner repaid a loan that was a condition for his partnership interest. One brother, who controlled the partnership’s entities, began excluding the others and denied the existence of any partnership, asserting sole ownership over the assets.The litigation began in 2003 when the excluded brother sued his siblings and related entities for his partnership share and damages. Two other brothers, who initially disclaimed the partnership under alleged economic coercion, later filed cross-complaints for their shares in both the diamond and real estate partnerships. The case saw multiple prior appeals and writ proceedings. After the trial court initially granted summary adjudication against the main plaintiff on most claims, the California Court of Appeal reversed, allowing contract, fiduciary duty, and fraud claims to proceed. Further cross-complaints were filed by the brothers, which survived demurrer on statute of limitations grounds.In 2024, after a lengthy jury trial, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County entered judgment in favor of the three plaintiff brothers, awarding declaratory relief, partnership shares, compensatory and punitive damages, and prejudgment interest totaling about $6.85 billion against the controlling brother and the partnership entities. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, rejected most challenges to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and instructions, but held the court erred in admitting an undisclosed expert opinion concerning lost investment profits. The appellate court conditionally affirmed the judgment, ordering a reduction of the economic damages awards relating to the real estate partnership by amounts attributable to this opinion, unless the plaintiffs opt for a new trial on those damages and related punitive damages. The judgments were otherwise affirmed. View "Jogani v. Jogani" on Justia Law

The case concerns a life insurance policy that was issued by an insurer to Ewanda Ferguson. After the policy had lapsed for nonpayment, Ewanda applied for reinstatement by submitting an application in which she falsely denied having her driver’s license suspended or being convicted of DUI/DWI in the prior ten years. In reality, Ewanda had two operating-while-impaired convictions and a license revocation within that period. She died in an automobile accident a few months later. The insurer reinstated the policy posthumously and the beneficiary, Elizabeth Ferguson, submitted a claim for the death benefit.Following Ewanda’s death and the submission of the claim, the insurer discovered the misrepresentations in the reinstatement application. Because Ewanda died within the two-year contestability period, the insurer reviewed her application, determined that it would not have reinstated the policy had it known of her true driving history, and rescinded the policy. The insurer then refused to pay the death benefit. Elizabeth Ferguson filed suit in Michigan state court, alleging breach of contract. The insurer removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and counterclaimed to confirm the propriety of rescission. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that rescission was proper without balancing the equities, because Ferguson was not an “innocent third party” under Michigan law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that, under Michigan law, a life insurance beneficiary who is a third-party beneficiary stands in the shoes of the insured and has no greater rights than the insured would have had. Therefore, the insurer was entitled to rescind the policy based on material misrepresentations made by Ewanda, and the district court was not required to balance the equities before ordering rescission. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Ferguson v. MetLife Investors USA Insurance Co." on Justia Law