Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Two former employees of a fire alarm and sprinkler company provided fire alarm testing and inspection services on public works projects in New York. They alleged that their employer failed to pay them the prevailing wages required by New York Labor Law § 220, which mandates that workers on public works projects receive at least the prevailing rate of wages. The contracts between the employer and various public entities included clauses that either disclaimed the applicability of prevailing wage laws, were silent on the issue, or referenced prevailing wage rates. Many contracts also contained a provision shortening the statute of limitations for any action against the company to one year.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted partial summary judgment in favor of the employer on all prevailing wage-related claims. The court found that: (1) the contracts did not expressly promise to pay prevailing wages; (2) the one-year contractual limitations period barred the claims; and (3) fire alarm testing and inspection work was not covered by § 220’s prevailing wage requirement. The court also dismissed related quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims and later approved a class action settlement on other claims, with the prevailing wage claims reserved for appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that, based on a 2009 New York State Department of Labor opinion letter and relevant precedent, fire alarm testing and inspection work is covered by § 220, entitling the plaintiffs to prevailing wages. However, the Second Circuit found New York law unsettled on whether a promise to pay prevailing wages is implicit in every public works contract (even if not expressly stated) and whether a contractual one-year limitations period is enforceable against workers’ third-party beneficiary claims. The court therefore certified these two questions to the New York Court of Appeals for resolution. View "Walton v. Comfort Systems" on Justia Law

Two brothers, Tom and Robert Hoffmann, were formerly partners in a family heating and air conditioning business. After Robert bought out Tom’s interest, they settled their disputes in state court with an agreement that included a four-year prohibition on Tom’s use of the “Hoffmann” name in any HVAC business, as well as non-disparagement and non-solicitation clauses. After the four-year period, Tom started a new company, Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC, using the family name. Robert and his company, Hoffmann Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., objected and filed suit in federal court, alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Tom and his company on the copyright claim, finding insufficient evidence of damages or a causal link between the alleged infringement and any profits. The remaining claims proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a mixed verdict largely favoring Tom and his company on the trademark and unfair competition claims. Both sides sought attorney fees, but the district court denied all requests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the copyright claim, holding that the evidence of damages and profits was too speculative. It also upheld the jury instructions and verdict on the trademark claims, finding the instructions properly reflected the law regarding customer sophistication and initial-interest confusion. The court agreed that ambiguity in the settlement agreement’s language about post-four-year use of the Hoffmann name was a factual question for the jury. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of attorney fees to Robert, as he had not personally incurred any fees. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects. View "Hoffmann Bros. Heating & Air v. Hoffmann Air & Heating" on Justia Law

A pet food manufacturer, Sunshine Mills, had a longstanding business relationship with Nutra-Blend, a supplier of animal nutrient products. For years, Sunshine Mills ordered a specific concentration of Vitamin D3 (Vitamin D3 7500) from Nutra-Blend for use in its dog food. In 2017, due to a miscommunication, Nutra-Blend shipped a different, much more concentrated product (Vitamin D3 500) instead. Sunshine Mills, unaware of the difference and believing Nutra-Blend only sold one type of Vitamin D3, accepted and used the product, resulting in several dogs developing Vitamin D toxicity, with some becoming ill or dying.After the incident, Sunshine Mills sued Nutra-Blend in the Lee County Circuit Court, alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, a claim under the Mississippi Products Liability Act (MPLA), and common-law negligence. Nutra-Blend moved for summary judgment, arguing that all claims were subsumed by the MPLA and failed on other grounds. Sunshine Mills abandoned its tort-based claims, leaving only the contract-based claims. The Lee County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Nutra-Blend on all claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and held that the MPLA does not govern Sunshine Mills’ remaining claims because they do not allege damages caused by a defective product, but rather by breach of contract and implied warranty. The court clarified that the MPLA applies only to claims for damages caused by defective products, not to contract-based claims between commercial entities. The court also found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding both the breach of contract and implied warranty claims, precluding summary judgment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sunshine Mills, Inc. v. Nutra-Blend, LLC" on Justia Law

Fieldwood Energy LLC, an oil and gas company, contracted with Island Operating Company, Inc. (IOC) through a Master Services Contract (MSC) to provide workers for oil and gas production services on offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. The MSC defined the work as “Lease Operators,” and a subsequent work order requested “A Operators” to perform tasks such as compliance testing and equipment checks on the platforms. The contract required Fieldwood to provide marine transportation for workers and equipment, which it did by hiring Offshore Oil Services, Inc. (OOSI) to transport IOC employees, including Tyrone Felix, to the platforms. Felix was injured while disembarking from OOSI’s vessel, the M/V Anna M, and subsequently made a claim against OOSI.OOSI filed a complaint for exoneration or limitation of liability in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. OOSI also sought indemnification from IOC under the MSC’s indemnity provision. IOC moved for summary judgment, arguing that Louisiana law, specifically the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (LOAIA), rendered the indemnity provision unenforceable. The district court agreed, finding that the MSC was not a maritime contract because vessels were not expected to play a substantial role in the contract’s performance, and thus Louisiana law applied. The court granted summary judgment for IOC on indemnity and insurance coverage, and later on defense costs after OOSI settled with Felix.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the MSC was not a maritime contract because neither its terms nor the parties’ expectations contemplated that vessels would play a substantial role in the contract’s completion. As a result, Louisiana law applied, and the LOAIA barred enforcement of the indemnity provision. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of IOC. View "Offshore Oil Services, Inc. v. Island Operating Co." on Justia Law

Steven Meads and Penny Lipking-Meads operated a business as a sole proprietorship before partnering with Jed Driggers in 2010 to expand the business. The parties formed Afterburner, LLC, with the Meadses and Driggers as members, and Driggers as manager. The Meadses contributed assets and goodwill, while Driggers provided capital and expertise. The LLC’s operating agreement included a provision stating that the LLC could only be dissolved by a vote of the members or bankruptcy/insolvency, and that members agreed not to take any other voluntary action to dissolve the LLC, effectively waiving the right to seek judicial dissolution under certain statutory circumstances.A decade later, the Meadses alleged Driggers had improperly diverted business funds and filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Siskiyou County seeking, among other relief, judicial dissolution of the LLC. Driggers and the LLC filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, arguing that the Meadses violated the operating agreement’s waiver provision by seeking dissolution. The Meadses responded with a motion to strike the cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, contending that the waiver provision was unenforceable as contrary to law and public policy. The Superior Court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the cross-complaint arose from protected activity and that Driggers could not show a probability of prevailing.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that, under the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act, an LLC operating agreement may not waive or vary a member’s statutory right to seek judicial dissolution in the circumstances specified by law. The court concluded that the waiver provision was void and unenforceable, and thus Driggers could not prevail on his cross-complaint. The order striking the cross-complaint was affirmed. View "Meads v. Driggers" on Justia Law

A manufacturer of fasteners and related parts entered into a long-term supply agreement with a home appliance company, which later spun off its outdoor products division into a separate entity. The agreement, intended to make the manufacturer the exclusive supplier for a broad range of parts, quickly became the subject of disputes over its scope and the parties’ obligations. The parties attempted to resolve their disagreements through a settlement memorandum and a consent order, but further conflicts arose regarding price increases, performance, and payment for inventory.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia was first asked to interpret the scope of the parties’ agreements. It found the original contract too indefinite to enforce in its entirety but held that subsequent agreements and the parties’ course of performance clarified which parts were covered. The district court also sanctioned the manufacturer for discovery violations, specifically for failing to produce product-level cost data, and struck its lost profits claim. The court denied the manufacturer’s motion for sanctions against the defendants for alleged spoliation, finding the motion untimely and the missing evidence irrelevant. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the manufacturer’s price increase claim, finding insufficient evidence to support the requested increases, and denied the manufacturer’s motion to amend its complaint to add a claim for prejudgment interest due to undue delay.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed each of the manufacturer’s challenges. The court held that the district court properly interpreted the scope of the agreements, did not abuse its discretion in imposing or denying discovery sanctions, correctly granted summary judgment on the price increase claim, and appropriately excluded certain evidence at trial. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed all orders and the final judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Whitesell Corporation v. Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc." on Justia Law

A residential community consisting of sixty-seven homes was developed and sold by a developer, with a separate contractor responsible for construction. Each homebuyer entered into a purchase agreement with the developer, which included an anti-assignment clause stating that the agreement and the buyer’s rights under it could not be assigned without the developer’s written consent. The developer later created a homeowners’ association (HOA) to manage the community’s common areas and certain aspects of the homes’ exteriors. After construction, the HOA alleged that the community suffered from construction defects and filed suit against both the developer and the contractor, asserting claims under Arizona’s dwelling action statutes and for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the HOA had no legal right to assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty and that the purchase agreement’s anti-assignment clause barred homeowners from assigning such claims to the HOA. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the implied warranty claim was part of the contract and that the anti-assignment clause validly precluded assignment of those claims to the HOA.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case to determine whether the anti-assignment clause prevented homeowners from assigning their accrued claims for breach of the implied warranty to the HOA. The court held that the anti-assignment clause, which prohibited assignment of the agreement and the buyer’s rights under it, did not prohibit the assignment of accrued claims for damages arising from breach of the implied warranty. The court distinguished between assignment of contract rights and assignment of claims for damages, concluding that the latter was not barred by the agreement’s language. The Supreme Court vacated the relevant portions of the Court of Appeals’ decision, reversed the trial court’s summary judgment on the implied warranty claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "POINTE 16 v GTIS-HOV" on Justia Law

In May 2022, Garry Douglas Seaman shot and killed James Preston Freeman and seriously wounded Heidi Gabert, following the end of his romantic relationship with Gabert, with whom he shares a minor child. Seaman was criminally charged, and Gabert and Dawn Freeman, James’s spouse, filed a civil suit for damages. To prevent Seaman from transferring or selling assets during the litigation, Gabert and Freeman successfully sought a receivership over all of Seaman’s property. After negotiations, the parties reached a settlement memorialized in a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which included $10 million judgments for Gabert and Freeman, liquidation of Seaman’s assets, and a homestead exemption for Seaman.The Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, approved the creation of a designated settlement fund (DSF) to facilitate asset liquidation. Initially, the court’s DSF Order required the Liquidation Receiver to reserve funds from asset sales to pay Seaman’s capital gains taxes, interpreting the MOU’s tax payment provision as unambiguous. Gabert and Freeman moved to amend this order under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), arguing the court erred in its interpretation and that the parties did not intend to reserve funds for Seaman’s capital gains taxes. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court agreed, finding the MOU ambiguous and, based on extrinsic evidence, concluded the parties did not intend to reserve such funds. The court amended its order, striking the provision requiring reservation for capital gains taxes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion in amending the DSF Order. The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion, correctly found the MOU ambiguous, and its factual finding regarding the parties’ intent was not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s amended order. View "Gabert v. Seaman" on Justia Law

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded $16 billion in grants to five nonprofit organizations to support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as part of a larger $27 billion congressional appropriation under the Inflation Reduction Act. The grants were structured through agreements between the nonprofits and EPA, with Citibank acting as a financial agent to hold and disburse the funds. After concerns arose regarding conflicts of interest, lack of oversight, and last-minute amendments to the grant agreements, EPA terminated the grants in early 2025. Citibank, following an FBI recommendation, froze the accounts associated with the grants. The nonprofits sued, seeking to prevent the termination and to restore access to the funds.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction, ordering EPA and Citibank to continue funding the grants. The district court found it had jurisdiction, concluding the plaintiffs’ claims were not essentially contractual and thus did not need to be brought in the Court of Federal Claims. The court determined the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional, regulatory, and arbitrary and capricious claims, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs’ regulatory and arbitrary and capricious claims were essentially contractual, meaning jurisdiction lay exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims, not the district court. The court also held that the constitutional claim was meritless. The equities and public interest, the appellate court concluded, favored the government’s need for oversight and management of public funds. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

A Nebraska software company entered into a lease agreement with a financial technology firm for the use of proprietary software designed to facilitate electronic transactions. The agreement required the tech firm to pay substantial annual fees upon acceptance of the software, with installation dependent on the tech firm’s cooperation. The parties also entered a separate agreement for preinstallation services, which were paid in full. After initial delays and a temporary suspension due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the tech firm ultimately terminated the project, citing incompatibility of the software with its infrastructure.The software company filed suit in Nebraska state court, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, seeking damages equal to the unpaid lease fees. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The district court granted summary judgment for the tech firm, holding that a limitation-of-liability clause in the lease agreement barred the software company from recovering the damages sought. The court found that the clause limited recovery to fees actually paid, not fees owed, and that the clause was neither unconscionable nor rendered the contract meaningless. The court also determined that the Uniform Commercial Code did not apply, and even if it did, the contract did not fail of its essential purpose.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that, under Delaware law, the limitation-of-liability clause was enforceable as written, limiting damages to fees paid and barring recovery of unpaid fees. The court also found the clause was not unconscionable and that the contract did not fail of its essential purpose. The judgment in favor of the tech firm was affirmed. View "Baldwin Hacket and Meeks, Inc. v. Early Warning Services, LLC" on Justia Law