Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Two individuals purchased Florida prepaid college tuition savings plans for their daughters in 2004 and 2006. The plans promised to cover tuition at Florida public colleges or transfer an equivalent amount to non-Florida colleges if the beneficiary chose to attend elsewhere. In 2007, the Florida Legislature authorized a new “tuition differential” fee, exempting holders of existing plans from paying that fee at Florida colleges. The Florida Prepaid College Board amended the plan contracts to specify that this new fee was not covered for out-of-state schools. Over a decade later, when both daughters chose to attend out-of-state colleges, the Board declined to transfer an amount equivalent to the tuition differential fee.The purchasers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against members of the Board, alleging that the Board’s refusal violated the Contracts and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Board from applying the statutory exemption and contract amendments to beneficiaries attending non-Florida schools. The Board moved to dismiss, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, reasoning the relief sought was prospective. However, the district court disagreed, ruling that the relief requested was essentially a demand for a refund, thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity because the relief sought would require specific performance of a contract with the state, which is not permitted under Ex parte Young and related Supreme Court precedent. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice, as the dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lavina v. Florida Prepaid College Board" on Justia Law

Two builders’ associations, whose members are largely non-union construction contractors, challenged a federal procurement mandate issued by executive order in February 2022. The order, issued by the President, presumptively requires all contractors and subcontractors on federal construction projects valued at $35 million or more to enter into project labor agreements with unions. The order allows for three specific exceptions if a senior agency official provides a written explanation. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued regulations implementing the order, and the Office of Management and Budget provided guidance. The associations argued that the mandate unfairly deprived their members of contracting opportunities and brought a facial challenge under several statutory and constitutional grounds, seeking to enjoin the mandate’s enforcement.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the associations were likely to succeed on their claim under the Competition in Contracting Act, since the government was not meaningfully applying the order’s exceptions, but concluded that the associations would not suffer irreparable harm because they could challenge individual procurements in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The district court did not consider irreparable harm as to the associations’ other claims.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, although for different reasons. The Eleventh Circuit held that the associations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial challenge under the Competition in Contracting Act, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. The court emphasized that the existence of written exceptions in the executive order precluded a facial invalidity finding, and that the government acted within its statutory and proprietary authority. The court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First Coast Chapter v. General Services Administration" on Justia Law

A sports agent entered into a written agreement with a professional basketball player’s company to receive a commission on all marketing income generated from leads initially produced by the agent. Under an endorsement contract with a sportswear company negotiated by the agent, the player’s company received compensation in several forms, including one million shares of restricted stock that vested over time. The agent was paid commissions on cash compensation as EmTurn, the player’s company, received it. However, no commission was paid or invoiced for the stock compensation until years later, after the player was no longer represented by the agent and had sold a substantial number of the shares.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware, after cross-motions for summary judgment, concluded that the stock compensation qualified as “marketing income” under the agreement and thus was commissionable. However, the court found the agreement was ambiguous as to when the commission on the stock was due. By examining the parties’ course of performance, the court decided the commission was due when the stock vested, not when it was sold. Because the last shares vested in 2016 and the lawsuit was not filed until 2022, the court held the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations and dismissed the agent’s claims.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed that the stock was commissionable under the agreement, rejecting the player’s argument that the absence of specific payment mechanisms rendered it non-commissionable. However, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s statute of limitations ruling, finding genuine factual disputes regarding when payment was due for the stock commission—either at vesting or at sale. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings for a factfinder to determine what constituted a reasonable time for payment, which would resolve the limitations issue. View "F.A.M.E. LLC v. Emturn LLC" on Justia Law

During the Second World War, Chevron’s corporate predecessor operated oil fields in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, producing crude oil that was refined into aviation gasoline (avgas) for the United States military under federal contracts. Decades later, following the enactment of Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, which imposed permit requirements on certain uses of the coastal zone but exempted uses lawfully commenced before 1980, Plaquemines Parish and other parishes brought suit in state court. They alleged that Chevron and other oil companies had failed to obtain required permits and that some pre-1980 activities, including those during the war, were illegally commenced and not exempt.The parish’s expert report specifically challenged Chevron’s wartime crude-oil production methods, including its use of vertical drilling, canals, and earthen pits, as harmful to the environment and not in compliance with the Act. Chevron sought removal to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1), arguing that the suit was “for or relating to” acts under color of its duties as a federal contractor refining avgas. The United States District Court granted the parish’s motion to remand to state court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that although Chevron acted under a federal officer as a military contractor, the suit did not “relate to” those acts because the federal refining contract did not govern how Chevron obtained or produced crude oil.The Supreme Court of the United States held that Chevron plausibly alleged a close, not tenuous or remote, relationship between the challenged crude-oil production and its federal avgas refining duties. The Court concluded that the suit satisfied the “relating to” requirement for removal under §1442(a)(1), vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish" on Justia Law

A charity gala honoring Joan Hisaoka was held annually at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., with Inova Health Care Services contracting with the hotel for the event and the Smith Center for Healing and the Arts providing financial support. In December 2018, Inova and Omni executed an agreement specifying that the 2019 Gala would be held in the Ambassador and Regency Ballrooms. The contract did not include Omni’s standard clause permitting reassignment of event spaces. A few months before the event, Omni informed Inova it would relocate the Gala to less desirable spaces to accommodate a higher-paying client. Inova objected, found the alternative spaces unsuitable, and relocated the Gala to another venue. Smith Center, though not a party to the contract, paid the deposit as in prior years.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment. Upon reconsideration, it granted summary judgment on liability to Inova and Smith Center, finding Omni had breached the contract’s express terms and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court limited Omni’s mitigation defense and the case proceeded to a jury trial on damages, resulting in awards to both Inova and Smith Center.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed summary judgment and the jury’s damages award in favor of Inova, holding there was no genuine dispute that Omni materially breached the contract and acted in bad faith. The court also held the district court properly precluded Omni’s mitigation defense regarding the alternative spaces. However, the appellate court vacated the damages award to Smith Center, finding a genuine factual dispute regarding its status as an intended third-party beneficiary, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Inova Health Care Services v. Omni Shoreham Corporation" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including a medical device company and its founder, developed and sold a cosmetic penile implant. In 2018, a urologist who later became one of the defendants attended a training session hosted by the plaintiffs, where he signed a non-disclosure agreement and was introduced to certain ideas for improving the implant as well as a list of required surgical instruments. Plaintiffs claimed that these ideas and the instrument list were trade secrets. Soon after, the defendants began developing a competing implant, filed patent applications based on allegedly misappropriated information, and advertised using plaintiffs’ trademark.The United States District Court for the Central District of California heard the case, which included claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract under the nondisclosure agreement, trademark counterfeiting, and incorrect inventorship of two patents. The jury found for the plaintiffs on all major claims, including that the asserted trade secrets were protectable and misappropriated, and that there had been a breach of contract. The court awarded substantial damages, including a reasonable royalty, exemplary damages, and a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from using the trade secrets. The court also found for plaintiffs on their counterfeiting claim and invalidated the two patents for failure to name an alleged true inventor.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held there was not legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the asserted information qualified as trade secrets under California law, as the core concepts were either generally known or not subject to reasonable secrecy efforts. The court reversed the denial of judgment as a matter of law on the trade secret and breach-of-contract claims, vacated the damages and injunction based on them, and reversed the invalidation of the patents. However, the court affirmed the verdict and damages for trademark counterfeiting. The result was an affirmance in part, reversal in part, and vacatur in part. View "INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES, INC. v. CORNELL " on Justia Law

Pamela Whalen was injured when she tripped over a utility box in a community owned and maintained by Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC, and Greystone Nevada, LLC. Before the accident, Pamela had signed an amendment to a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) to buy a home from Lennar, which included an arbitration clause. The injury occurred during a tour of the community, not on the property she purchased. Following the accident, Pamela sued Lennar for negligence.After Pamela filed her complaint, Lennar responded with an answer and demanded a jury trial. Both parties engaged in extensive discovery over 17 months, including multiple disclosures, written discovery, and three medical examinations of Pamela at Lennar’s request. Lennar did not assert its right to arbitrate until after this lengthy discovery process. When Pamela declined to stipulate to arbitration, Lennar filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the PSA. The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, denied Lennar’s motion, determining that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in interpreting the scope of the arbitration clause, as the PSA delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. However, the Supreme Court held that Lennar had waived its right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case for 17 months before seeking arbitration. The court found this conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and prejudicial to Pamela, especially given the discovery obtained that might not have been available in arbitration. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration, albeit on the grounds of waiver rather than contract interpretation. View "LENNAR COMM. NEV., LLC VS. WHALEN" on Justia Law

A South Dakota resident hired a South Dakota attorney after his wife's fatal car accident in North Dakota. The attorney brought in a North Dakota lawyer and they both signed agreements with the client, providing for a one-third contingent fee split between the two firms. The agreements allowed the attorneys to withdraw and assert a lien for their full contingent fee if the client refused a settlement offer they deemed reasonable. After the at-fault party’s insurer quickly offered policy limits totaling $500,000, the attorneys and client unsuccessfully pursued other sources of recovery. The attorneys advised settling, but the client declined, leading the attorneys to withdraw and file an attorney’s lien for their fee. Eighteen months later, the client accepted the settlement, prompting the attorneys to seek enforcement of their lien. The client counterclaimed, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and deceit, and sought rescission under North Dakota law.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Codington County, granted summary judgment for the attorneys, enforcing their fee and dismissing the client’s counterclaims. The court found South Dakota law applied, not North Dakota law, and concluded that the fee agreements were enforceable and reasonable. The client appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota held that South Dakota law governs the dispute and affirmed dismissal of the client’s counterclaims. However, it reversed the enforcement of the full contingent fee, finding that the contractual provision allowing withdrawal and a full fee upon the client’s refusal to settle unduly infringed on the client’s rights. The court held that, after withdrawal for good cause, the attorneys are entitled to recover reasonable fees based on quantum meruit, not the contingent fee, and remanded for determination of that amount. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Culhane v. Thovson" on Justia Law

Cuevas Machine Company entered into a subcontract with O’Neal Constructors for fabrication and machining work at a filtration plant owned by Calgon Carbon Corporation in Mississippi. Under the subcontract, Cuevas was to be paid after Calgon paid O’Neal. Despite nonpayment from O’Neal, Cuevas continued its work. In October 2023, Cuevas recorded two construction liens totaling over $1.2 million against Calgon’s property, but the lien documents did not explicitly state the last date labor, services, or materials were supplied—a statutory requirement. Instead, Cuevas attached invoices to the liens, which included dates, but it was unclear whether these dates satisfied the statutory requirement.After Cuevas filed suit to foreclose on the liens in Mississippi state court, Calgon removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and moved to dismiss. The district court granted Calgon’s motion, dismissing Cuevas’s complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court concluded, making an Erie guess, that the liens were unenforceable because they did not clearly specify the required “last date” in the manner demanded by Mississippi law, and found that the attached invoices did not sufficiently cure this defect.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. Finding Mississippi law ambiguous on whether attachments that do not plainly state the “last date” can satisfy the statutory requirement, the Fifth Circuit certified the following question to the Mississippi Supreme Court: whether attaching invoices that do not explicitly state the “last date labor, services or materials were supplied” satisfies the requirement under Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-405(1)(b) that a lien “specify the date the claim was due.” The Fifth Circuit did not decide the merits, instead certifying the question for authoritative resolution. View "Cuevas Machine v. Calgon Carbon" on Justia Law

The case involves a business arrangement among AE OpCo, AAR, and Short Brothers, centered on a procurement contract. AAR’s subsidiary manufactured airline parts for Short Brothers, and AAR guaranteed its subsidiary’s performance. When AE OpCo acquired AAR’s business, it assumed the obligation to perform under the contract, while AAR guaranteed AE OpCo’s performance to Short Brothers. In turn, AE OpCo agreed to indemnify AAR if AE OpCo defaulted. Later, AE OpCo filed for bankruptcy and rejected the procurement contract, prompting both Short Brothers and AAR to file claims in the bankruptcy proceeding.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida considered three claims from AAR: an indemnification claim for potential liability to Short Brothers, a defense-costs claim for legal fees incurred in ongoing litigation with Short Brothers in Northern Ireland, and a bankruptcy-costs claim for attorneys’ fees incurred in the bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court disallowed the indemnification claim as contingent and barred by 11 U.S.C. § 502(e)(1)(B), allowed the defense-costs claim as a fixed, non-contingent claim, and disallowed the bankruptcy-costs claim as a post-petition unsecured claim.On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s disallowance of the indemnification claim, holding that under Delaware law, the settlement between AE OpCo and Short Brothers did not release AE OpCo’s liability, so AAR remained co-liable and the claim was properly disallowed under § 502(e)(1)(B). The appellate court also affirmed the allowance of the defense-costs claim, finding it was not contingent since all events giving rise to liability had occurred. However, the court reversed the disallowance of the bankruptcy-costs claim, holding that neither § 502(b) nor § 506(b) barred allowance of such a claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "AE OPCO III, LLC v. AAR CORP." on Justia Law