Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Adam Ray, a former employee of Granite Buick GMC, Inc., and Scott Hanna, a former employee of McKie Ford Lincoln, Inc., left their respect employment and started their own automobile dealership. Granite Buick and McKie Ford sought injunctions to enforce non-compete agreements Defendants signed during the course of their employment. After the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, the circuit court concluded that the non-compete agreements were valid but granted judgment in favor of Defendants on their affirmative defenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly determined (1) Ray’s covenant not to compete was fraudulently induced; and (2) McKie Ford waived its right to enforce Hanna’s covenant not to compete. View "Granite Buick GMC, Inc. v. Ray" on Justia Law

These interlocutory appeals were from a district court order that, inter alia, compelled a law firm (Mintz Levin) to produce documents relating to a fraud allegedly committed by David Gorski in his operation of Legion Construction, Inc. in order to qualify for and obtain government contracts. Gorski and Legion appealed the portion of the order that required attorney-client privileged documents connected with Mintz Levin’s representation of Legion to be produced under the crime-fraud exception. The government cross-appealed the portion of the district court decision to exclude communications between Gorski and his personal attorney from the production order. The First Circuit (1) dismissed Gorski’s appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the Court did not have jurisdiction over Gorski’s appeal but did have jurisdiction over Legion’s appeal and the government’s cross-appeal; (2) affirmed the production order as to Mintz Levin, holding that a prima facie case for the crime-fraud exception had been made; and (3) vacated the district court’s decision to exclude Gorski’s communications with his personal attorney from the production order, holding that the district court employed incorrect legal reasoning with regard to these documents. View "United States v. Gorski" on Justia Law

Mark Galvin was the guarantor of a defaulted promissory note on a loan secured by an interest in a Cessna 421C aircraft. The note and security agreement were assigned to Harley-Davidson Credit Corp. After the borrower defaulted on the note, Harley-Davidson repossessed and sold the aircraft through a third-party dealer for $155,000 and then sought to collect $108,681 from Galvin. Galvin did not pay. Harley-Davidson subsequently filed a breach of contract action against Galvin to collect the deficiency. The district court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Harley-Davidson, concluding that there was no dispute of material fact that the sale was “commercially reasonable.” The First Circuit reversed, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the sale was “commercially reasonable,” and therefore, summary judgment should have been denied. Remanded. View "Harley-Davidson Credit Corp. v. Galvin" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation appealed a judgment of approximately $1.1 million plus interest, costs, and attorney fees of approximately $1.8 million in favor of plaintiff-respondent Hot Rods, LLC. This case involved an environmentally compromised property Hot Rods purchased from Northrop and the alleged damages stemming from environmental cleanup and related issues. The matter was tried by a referee pursuant to stipulation, and judgment was entered by the trial court, adopting the referee’s recommendations. Northrop alleged numerous errors. Upon review, the Court of Appeal found that there was language in the referee’s statement of decision indicating Northrop had negligently misrepresented certain facts, but did not find any damages were proximately caused, nor did the referee award any damages on that cause of action. The Court concluded the referee erred in admitting certain evidence, and that a finding of negligent misrepresentation was therefore improper, and not sufficiently supported by substantial evidence. The Court reversed the bulk of the damages award, and remanded for a reconsideration of which party was the prevailing party, and therefore entitled to attorney fees. View "Hot Rods v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp." on Justia Law

Jon Norberg appealed a district court judgment allowing his former parents-in-law, Robert and Cheri Knorr, to buy back certain real property under an alleged oral lease. He argued the district court erred in concluding the Knorrs established promissory estoppel and constructive trust. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the district court's findings of promissory estoppel were not clearly erroneous. View "Knorr v. Norberg" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract and for wrongfully discharging him in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim in good faith. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim related to Defendant’s failure to remit accrued vacation pay upon his termination. A jury found in Plaintiff’s favor. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, awarding him past and future lost earnings, employee benefits, and other damages. Defendant appealed the portion of the judgment on the retaliation claim. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, holding that no evidence supported the jury’s verdict on that claim. View "Kingsaire, Inc. v. Melendez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant, alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Concerned by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s (Counsel) exposure to certain documents as a result of Counsel working “closely” with Defendant’s former finance manager, Defendant moved to disqualify Counsel from representing Plaintiff. The special master denied the motion to disqualify. The trial court, however, ordered Counsel’s disqualification. The court of appeals subsequently denied Plaintiffs’ petition for mandamus relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that the trial court improperly disqualified Counsel under In re American Home Products Corp., as the American Home Products screening requirement does not govern a fact witness with information about his former employer if his position with that employer existed independently of litigation and he did not primarily report to lawyers. Rather, to the extent that a fact witness discloses his past employer’s privileged and confidential information, the factors outlined in In re Meador should guide the trial court’s decision regarding disqualification. View "In re RSR Corp. and Quemetco Metals Ltd., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a commercial dairy operation, sued Defendants, the manufacturer of a microprocessor-based milking control unit and the dealer of the unit, alleging breach of express and implied warranties and negligence and seeking damages for the allegedly negligent and defective installation and programming of its unit. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that improper settings caused the milking units to detach while under significant vacuum, thereby harming the teats of the dairy cows and lowering milk production. The district court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff did not rebut Defendants’ prima facie case that mechanic components of the milking system maintained by Plaintiff and not part of the microprocessor-based control unit were the proximate cause of the alleged damages. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, as Plaintiff failed to present evidence from which a jury could determine that the unit was the proximate cause of the alleged injury to Plaintiff’s cows; but (2) reversed the district court’s order granting prejudgment interest on the dealer’s counterclaim, as there was a reasonable controversy over Plaintiff’s right to recover. View "Roskop Dairy, LLC v. GEA Farm Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between Plaintiffs, Rexas Inc., Rexam PLC, and Rexas Overseas Holdings Ltd. (“Rexam”), and Defendant Berry Plastics Corp. (“Berry”) over the risks of potential pension liability. In 2014, Berry agreed to purchase Rexam’s healthcare containers and closures business and accepted responsibility for the pensions of certain employees at one of Rexam’s facilities that it was acquiring (the “Rexam Pension Plan”). Before the anticipated closing, the Pnesion Benefit Guaranty Corp. (“PBGC”) notified Rexam that it had initiated an inquiry into the Pension Plan Transfer (the “PBGC Inquiry”). As part of the closing, the parties agreed to defer the Pension Plan Transfer. After the closing, the PBGC sent an email regarding the Pension Plan Transfer. Berry then informed Rexam that it would not complete the Pension Plan Transfer because it considered the PBGC’s email evidence of a threatened legal or administrative action by the PBGC. Rexam sued Berry for breach of contract. The Court of Chancery entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of Rexam and against Berry, holding that the PBGC did not “threaten” to take action, and therefore, Berry’s performance - acceptance of the Pension Plan Transfer - was not excused because of the PBGC Inquiry. View "Rexam Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp." on Justia Law

Real parties in interest (collectively, Seaver) filed a complaint against Petitioners (collectively, the Helfsteins) and against Uninet Imaging, Inc., alleging claims arising out of agreements between the Helfsteins and Seaver following Uninet’s purchase of the Helfsteins’ companies. The Helfsteisn settled with Seaver, and Seaver voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Helfsteins. Seaver later filed a notice of rescission, alleging that the Helfsteisn fraudulently induced them to settle. Meanwhile, the district court resolved the claims between Seaver and Uninet. Seaver later filed a Nev. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to set aside the settlement agreement and voluntary dismissal, seeking to proceed on their claims against the Helfsteins. The Helfsteisn filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over them and that the Rule 60(b) motion was procedurally improper. The district court denied the motion. The Helfsteins then filed this original writ petition asking the Supreme Court to consider whether Rule 60(b) can be used to set aside a voluntary dismissal or a settlement agreement. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that even if Rule 60(b) applied in this case, the motion was time-barred. View "Helfstein v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law