Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In this declaratory judgment action the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on its action seeking to vindicate its right to contract with outside counsel on a contingency-fee basis, holding that the OAG is subject to the contracting-oversight requirements of the Model Procurement Code and that the Government Contract Review Committeee (Committee) of the Legislative Research Commission did not arbitrarily disapprove of the contingency-fee contract at issue in this case.The OAG contracted on a contingency-fee basis with a team of law firms to conduct investigation into and commence litigation on potential statutory violations arising out of the manufacture and distribution of prescription opioid products within the Commonwealth. The Committee recommended that William Landrum, the Secretary of the Finance and Administration Cabinet, disapprove and cancel the contract. Landrum did as the Committee recommended. The OAG then brought this declaratory judgment action. The circuit court granted the OAG all the relief it sought. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Committee and Landrum did not act inappropriately in disapproving and canceling the contract. View "Landrum v. Commonwealth ex rel. Beshear" on Justia Law

After plaintiff disputed discounts applied by MultiPlan under his agreement with PHCS to charges for services he provided to patients that were covered by workers' compensation insurance, he filed suit against PHCS and Multiplan. Plaintiff's claims for civil conspiracy and breach of contract proceeded to trial and were subsequently dismissed after the district court granted defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law.The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff failed to show that the district court erred in determining that plaintiff did not establish an underlying "unlawful purpose" or unlawful activity on which to base his civil conspiracy claim. However, the court held that a reasonable jury could find based on the evidence presented that defendants breached the parties' agreement, and thus the district court erred in granting defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law as to the breach of contract claim. The court upheld the district court's ruling prohibiting additional evidence on punitive damages and the issue of punitive damage from reaching the jury. Finally, the court concluded that the district court's ruling prohibiting Attorney Gordon from participating in trial on plaintiff's behalf did not provide grounds for disturbing any of its judgments. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "MultiPlan, Inc. v. Holland" on Justia Law

Defendant, a 24-hour skilled nursing facility, appealed an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of claims asserting negligent or willful misconduct, elder abuse, and wrongful death filed against it by decedent’s daughter as successor in interest and individually. The trial court found the successor claims were not arbitrable because no arbitration agreement existed between decedent and defendant, given defendant’s failure to prove daughter had authority to sign the agreement on decedent’s behalf. The court further found the arbitration agreement was unenforceable against daughter individually on grounds of unconscionability. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court order. View "Lopez v. Bartlett Care Center, LLC" on Justia Law

Beginning in 2009, Plaintiff Rajesh Singh worked as an untenured professor in the School of Library and Information Management (SLIM) at Emporia State University (ESU). He was informed in February 2014 that his annual contract would not be renewed. He sued ESU and various administrators in their individual capacities, asserting several retaliation and discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD); and the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on every claim except one: a First Amendment retaliation claim under section 1983 against Provost David Cordle. Provost Cordle appealed the denial of summary judgment on the ground that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court then certified as final under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) its order granting summary judgment on all other claims, and Plaintiff filed a cross-appeal, challenging the grant of summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims: (1) ESU and the individual Defendants discriminated against him by not renewing his contract; and (2) ESU and the individual Defendants retaliated against him for filing discrimination complaints with ESU’s human resources department and the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC). The Tenth Circuit found the claims against ESU were brought under Title VII and the KAAD, and the claims against the individual Defendants were brought under section 1983. The Court reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment for Provost Cordle and affirmed grants of summary judgment on the remaining claims. Cordle was entitled to qualified immunity because he could have reasonably believed that the speech for which he allegedly punished Plaintiff was not on a matter of public concern. As for the discrimination claims, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Plaintiff did not establish a genuine issue of fact that ESU’s given reason for his nonrenewal, that he was noncollegial, was pretextual. “Although Plaintiff contends that these discrimination claims survive under the cat’s-paw theory of liability, he does not provide adequate evidence that the allegedly biased supervisor - his school’s dean - proximately caused the ultimate nonrenewal decision.” The Court affirmed summary judgment on Plaintiff’s retaliation claims because he failed to present adequate evidence that the ESU employees who allegedly retaliated against him knew that he had filed formal discrimination complaints. View "Singh v. Cordle" on Justia Law

Penn boarded Fantasy’s horses. After some of its horses became sick or injured and even died, Fantasy refused to pay boarding invoices totaling $65,707. Fantasy told Penn’s veterinarian, Edelson, that it was considering suing him; they entered into an agreement releasing “any and all persons, firms, or corporations liable or who might be liable . . . [from liability] arising out of or in any way relating to any injuries and damages of any and every kind . . . [in] the care and/or treatment of any [Fantasy] horses stabled at Penn.” Penn sued for breach of contract and defamation, based on emails sent to individuals in the industry blaming Penn for the deaths of Fantasy’s horses, calling the staff “inexperienced,” and accusing Penn of trying to conceal the problems. Fantasy counterclaimed, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court rejected the negligence counterclaims, based on the Edelson release. A jury awarded Penn $110,000 for breach of contract, $1 in nominal damages for defamation, and $89,999 in punitive damages. The court reduced the punitive damages to $5,500. The Third Circuit affirmed, except as to punitive damages. If the court finds, on remand, that the $89,999 award is unconstitutionally excessive, it should explain why it is not within the range of reasonable punitive damages for this claim and why a lower award reflects the reprehensibility of the conduct. View "Jester v. Hutt" on Justia Law

Brock filed suit against a former employee for violating his employment agreement's non-compete provision and requested a preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the injunction, holding that the agreement was not geographically overbroad. In this case, when defendant signed the agreement, he knew that he could be prohibited from working in the identified parishes, and that the restriction was the only one the district court enforced following reformation.The court also held that the district court did not err in admitting parol evidence and in determining that the parties' intent as to the meaning of subsection 7.1(a) of the agreement regarding where defendant needed to be working for Apache in order to violate the provision; the district court's reliance on evidence of customer solicitation was unnecessary to the finding of breach; and thus the district court did not err in finding a likelihood of success on the merits. In this case, defendant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in finding the balance of harm and public interest weigh in Brock's favor; the burden to plaintiff was minimal; and the injunction did not disserve the public. View "Brock Services, LLC v. Rogillio" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against LGE, alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and held that the two parties' agreements unambiguously permitted LGE to assess overdraft fees using the available balance calculation method.The Eleventh Circuit reversed and held that the agreements were ambiguous as to whether LGE could rely on an account's available balance, rather than its ledger balance, to assess overdraft fees. Therefore, the court held that plaintiff properly pleaded a claim for breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court also held that plaintiff alleged a claim under the EFTA because the Opt-In Agreement could describe either the available or the ledger balance calculation method for unsettled debts; plaintiff had no reasonable opportunity to affirmatively consent to LGE's overdraft services; and LGE was not protected from liability by the safe harbor. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Tims v. LGE Community Credit Union" on Justia Law

The trial court found that the parties to this landlord-tenant dispute had an oral rental agreement. Plaintiff-landlord was awarded plaintiff landlord back rent and reimbursement for electric bills. The court granted one tenant damages to compensate him for work he performed on landlord’s properties and another tenant compensatory and punitive damages for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and illegal eviction. Landlord appealed, arguing the trial court erred by: (1) finding there was an oral rental agreement between the parties and that defendants were tenants; (2) awarding rent for only a portion of the period tenants occupied the property; (3) awarding tenant Edson damages because the claim was not properly pled; and (4) awarding tenant Well punitive damages. Tenants cross appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in finding there was an agreement to pay rent once the building was compliant with the housing code and erred in awarding landlord back rent based on a theory of unjust enrichment. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the parties entered an oral agreement allowing tenants to stay in landlord’s apartment rent-free for some portion of time. The record did not support the court’s findings as to the terms of that agreement: that tenants agreed to pay rent after the building became compliant with the housing code and that the building did not become code-compliant until the third week of November 2016. Consequently, the award of back rent and reimbursement for electrical costs to landlord was stricken, and that issue remanded back to the trial court to make new findings regarding the nature of the parties’ agreement and to enter any revised judgment if supported by the facts. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s award of damages to tenant Edson for the work he performed for landlord, concluding that the issue was tried by implied consent. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded an award of punitive damages was allowable as damages for breach of the warranty of habitability and affirmed the award of punitive damages to tenant Well. View "Kwon v. Edson" on Justia Law

Driveline filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Arctic Cat over a supply contract for specially manufactured goods. Certain counts were resolved against Driveline by summary judgment. After a trial, the district court found that Arctic Cat was liable for $182,234.05; Driveline was liable for $163,481.04 on the Counterclaim; and Arctic Cat was due $27,700.50 in prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs. The court entered judgment for Arctic Cat and against Driveline in the amount of $8,947. The Seventh Circuit vacated summary judgment on one count, finding genuine dispute as to material facts. The relationship between the parties was governed by a mosaic of agreements. Factual issues remained concerning whether Arctic Cat’s delay in payment was or was not a breach and the circumstances surrounding Driveline’s suspension of shipments. View "Driveline Systems, LLC v. Arctic Cat, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals holding that Ohio Rev. Code 1308.16(A) allows a purchaser of a bond to assert a breach-of-contract claim that accrued before the bondholder's purchase because the purchaser acquired the rights of one who held the bond when the breach allegedly occurred, holding that absent a valid assignment of a right to bring a cause of action, the sale of a municipal bond does not automatically vest in the purchaser.This breach-of-contract case came to the Supreme Court on appeal from a judgment finding that the court of common pleas erred by refusing to certify a class action on grounds that the class lacked commonality. Plaintiff asked the trial court to certify a class of bondholders. The trial court concluded that commonality had not been established because each class member would allege a different time and purchase price as the basis for a breach and thus would have different potential damages. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that absent a valid assignment of claims, the sale of a municipal bond does not automatically vest in the buyer all claims and causes of action of the seller relating to the bond that arose before the transaction. View "Paul Cheatham I.R.A. v. Huntington National Bank" on Justia Law