Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Oklahoma and the Citizen Potawatomi Nation (the “Nation”) entered into a Tribal-State gaming compact; Part 12 of which contained a dispute-resolution procedure that called for arbitration of disagreements “arising under” the Compact’s provisions. The terms of the Compact indicated either party could, “[n]otwithstanding any provision of law,” “bring an action against the other in a federal district court for the de novo review of any arbitration award.” In Hall Street Associates, LLC. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) precluded parties to an arbitration agreement from contracting for de novo review of the legal determinations in an arbitration award. At issue before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was how to treat the Compact’s de novo review provision given the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates. The Nation argued the appropriate course was to excise from the Compact the de novo review provision, leaving intact the parties’ binding obligation to engage in arbitration, subject only to limited judicial review under 9 U.S.C. sections 9 and 10. Oklahoma argued the de novo review provision was integral to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate disputes arising under the Compact and, therefore, the Tenth Circuit should sever the entire arbitration provision from the Compact. The Tenth Circuit found the language of the Compact demonstrated that the de novo review provision was a material aspect of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate disputes arising thereunder. Because Hall Street Associates clearly indicated the Compact’s de novo review provision was legally invalid, and because the obligation to arbitrate was contingent on the availability of de novo review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the obligation to arbitrate set out in Compact Part 12 was unenforceable. Thus, the matter was remanded to the district court to enter an order vacating the arbitration award. View "Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Cardtronics in a breach of contract action alleging that Cardtronics failed to correct certain account information, which resulted in approximately $250,000 of misdirected funds. The court held that the district court misread the contract and that Cardtronics was obligated to use correct account information after receiving updated Terminal Set-up Forms to ensure proper set up of Star Financial's ATMs. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to determine in the first instance whether Cardtronics breached its obligation under the contract and the appropriate damages, if any. View "Star Financial Services, Inc. v. Cardtronics USA, Inc." on Justia Law

United Propane Gas, Inc. ("United Propane"), sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Cullman Circuit Court to vacate its order denying United Propane's motion to dismiss an action filed by Cullman Security Services, Inc. ("CSS"), and to enter an order dismissing the action. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that "the outbound forum-selection clause contained in the parties' contract is unfair or unreasonable because it deprives [CSS] of the ability to file a class action in contravention of a recognized Alabama public policy" and found that the parties' contract was a contract of adhesion. The Supreme Court concluded United Propane had shown a clear legal right to have the action dismissed on the basis that venue in the Cullman Circuit Court was, by application of the outbound forum-selection clause, improper. The trial court exceeded its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss CSS's action. The trial court was directed to dismiss the cause without prejudice. View "Ex parte United Propane Gas, Inc." on Justia Law

The district court erred in concluding that because of arbitration and venue provisions in an employment contract between the parties, it lacked jurisdiction.Nearly three years into the litigation in this case, the Douglas County District Court indefinitely stayed a claim for dissolution of one business entity, a party in the case, and dismissed sua sponte all other claims, noting that the employment contract contained arbitration and venue provisions that were outside the district court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed the stay and dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that because no party sought to enforce the arbitration agreement, it was error for the district court to do so on its own accord. View "Boyd v. Cook" on Justia Law

Meyer, a disbarred lawyer, owns JHM, which installed and maintained laundry machines in apartment buildings; Dolphin, which sold commercial laundry equipment to JHM and others; and JH Meyer, which operated a laundry facility. In 2012-2013, Firestone financed JHM’s business with loans totaling about $250,000. Because JHM obtained its equipment from Dolphin, the loans actually financed Dolphin’s purchases from the manufacturer. Firestone retained a security interest in JHM’s assets. Dolphin, JH Meyer, and Meyer guaranteed JHM’s loan obligations. In 2013 Firestone sued JHM for default and sued Meyer, Dolphin, and JH Meyer under the guarantees. The defendants raised the affirmative defense and counterclaim of promissory estoppel, asserting that after Firestone issued JHM two loans, Firestone’s Vice President McAllister told Meyer that Firestone would set up a $500,000 line of credit for JHM and that, until the line of credit was established, Firestone would finance “any” equipment that JHM needed on “identical terms” to the first two loans. Firestone subsequently issued the third loan. After McAllister left Firestone, Firestone’s CEO approved the final loan. The defendants assert that Firestone’s refusal to issue further loans harmed them. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Firestone. Meyer’s allegations were implausible because no financial firm would commit orally to loaning substantial sums to a startup. Meyer conceded that he “made no payments” to Firestone. A reasonable jury could not conclude that Meyer has satisfied any of the elements of promissory estoppel. View "Firestone Financial Corp. v. Meyer" on Justia Law

Meyer, a disbarred lawyer, owns JHM, which installed and maintained laundry machines in apartment buildings; Dolphin, which sold commercial laundry equipment to JHM and others; and JH Meyer, which operated a laundry facility. In 2012-2013, Firestone financed JHM’s business with loans totaling about $250,000. Because JHM obtained its equipment from Dolphin, the loans actually financed Dolphin’s purchases from the manufacturer. Firestone retained a security interest in JHM’s assets. Dolphin, JH Meyer, and Meyer guaranteed JHM’s loan obligations. In 2013 Firestone sued JHM for default and sued Meyer, Dolphin, and JH Meyer under the guarantees. The defendants raised the affirmative defense and counterclaim of promissory estoppel, asserting that after Firestone issued JHM two loans, Firestone’s Vice President McAllister told Meyer that Firestone would set up a $500,000 line of credit for JHM and that, until the line of credit was established, Firestone would finance “any” equipment that JHM needed on “identical terms” to the first two loans. Firestone subsequently issued the third loan. After McAllister left Firestone, Firestone’s CEO approved the final loan. The defendants assert that Firestone’s refusal to issue further loans harmed them. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Firestone. Meyer’s allegations were implausible because no financial firm would commit orally to loaning substantial sums to a startup. Meyer conceded that he “made no payments” to Firestone. A reasonable jury could not conclude that Meyer has satisfied any of the elements of promissory estoppel. View "Firestone Financial Corp. v. Meyer" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Eco-Energy in a breach of contract action filed by the Bank. The court held that the district court did not err by granting partial summary judgment for Eco-Energy because Eco-Energy did not breach a sublease where that sublease did not require Eco-Energy to give its partner in the sublease, Nedak, notice and opportunity to cure a default. Furthermore, Eco-Energy did not breach the Assignment where the district court found no causation. View "First Dakota National Bank v. Eco Energy, LLC" on Justia Law

Winn-Dixie filed suit against Big Lots, Dollar General, and Dollar Tree, to enforce a grocery exclusive provision of its leases. At issue on appeal was the district court's ruling on remand. The district court found that none of the Alabama stores was violating the grocery exclusive provisions. In regard to the Florida stores, the district court ruled that the definitions of "groceries" and "sales area" in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. 99 Cent Stuff-Trail Plaza, LLC, 811 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), applied. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's judgment as to the Dollar General and Big Lots stores in Florida and remanded with instructions for the district court to apply to those stores, which had leases dated before February 20, 2002, the same definitions of "groceries" and "sales area" that it applied to the Florida stores with leases dated after February 20, 2002. The court affirmed as to the Alabama stores. View "Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC" on Justia Law

Winn-Dixie filed suit against Big Lots, Dollar General, and Dollar Tree, to enforce a grocery exclusive provision of its leases. At issue on appeal was the district court's ruling on remand. The district court found that none of the Alabama stores was violating the grocery exclusive provisions. In regard to the Florida stores, the district court ruled that the definitions of "groceries" and "sales area" in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. 99 Cent Stuff-Trail Plaza, LLC, 811 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), applied. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's judgment as to the Dollar General and Big Lots stores in Florida and remanded with instructions for the district court to apply to those stores, which had leases dated before February 20, 2002, the same definitions of "groceries" and "sales area" that it applied to the Florida stores with leases dated after February 20, 2002. The court affirmed as to the Alabama stores. View "Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CarMax, alleging breaches of express and implied warranties, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL), and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). When plaintiff purchased her car at a CarMax dealership, she was not informed that there was an outstanding safety recall relating to the stop lamp switch in the vehicle. In regard to the alleged breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the Court of Appeal concluded that CarMax's express limitations on the remedies available applied to such a breach. The court explained that plaintiff obtained the remedy authorized under the contract and its limitations for a breach of warranty. However, plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish CarMax engaged in unfair or deceptive practices in violation of the CLRA, and plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to establish CarMax had a duty to disclose the safety recall. Finally, plaintiff stated a cause of action under the UCL where the violation of the CLRA served as the predicate violation of law necessary to establish the unlawful practice variety of unfair competition that was actionable under the UCL. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's judgment. View "Gutierrez v. CarMax Auto Superstores California" on Justia Law