Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2020, Milos Product Tanker Corporation transported approximately 40,000 tons of jet fuel belonging to Valero Marketing and Supply Company. Milos had a maritime transportation contract (Charter Party) with GP Global PTE Ltd., which arranged the voyage. Valero purchased the fuel from Koch Refining International PTE Ltd. on "cost and freight" terms, meaning Koch paid for the transportation. Upon delivery, Valero refused to pay Milos, arguing it had already paid Koch. GP Global, facing financial difficulties, also did not pay Milos, leading Milos to sue Valero for breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Milos, concluding that Valero breached an express or implied contract to pay Milos for the transportation. The court reasoned that Valero's conduct showed its consent to be bound by the Charter Party between Milos and GP Global. The court also found that Valero was alternatively liable under an implied promise to pay, based on its acceptance of the fuel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that under maritime law, the shipper (GP Global) is primarily liable for freight charges, even if a bill of lading suggests otherwise. The court found no express contract between Milos and Valero that would rebut this presumption. The Charter Party specifically stated that GP Global would pay the freight. The court also determined that Valero's conduct did not imply an agreement to be bound by the bills of lading or to pay freight. Additionally, the court found no basis for an implied obligation for Valero to pay under the principles established in States Marine International, Inc. v. Seattle-First National Bank. The court concluded that Valero was not unjustly enriched, as it had paid Koch for the freight charges. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "MILOS PRODUCT TANKER CORPORATION V. VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY" on Justia Law

A group of residents in the Whitehorse Estates Minor Subdivision filed a complaint against their neighbors, Joseph and Amanda Kleinhans, alleging that the Kleinhans violated the subdivision’s restrictive covenants by converting their garage into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and renting it out as an Airbnb. The covenants in question required properties to be used only for single-family dwellings and prohibited the operation of commercial businesses.The District Court of the Twenty-Second Judicial District, Carbon County, granted summary judgment in favor of the Kleinhans. The court interpreted the single-family dwelling covenant as a structural restriction, not a use restriction, meaning it only limited the type and number of buildings but did not restrict the use of the property to single families. The court also found the commercial business covenant to be ambiguous and concluded it did not prohibit short-term rentals like Airbnb. Consequently, the court awarded the Kleinhans their Bill of Costs amounting to $4,594.35.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the term "commercial business" was not ambiguous and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which includes activities conducted for profit. Therefore, the Kleinhans' operation of an Airbnb constituted a commercial business, violating the subdivision’s covenants. The Supreme Court also reversed the award of the Bill of Costs to the Kleinhans and remanded the case to the District Court to enter summary judgment in favor of the neighbors. View "Myers v. Kleinhans" on Justia Law

In 2006, Lisa Wilson's late husband, Mason, purchased a home in Coventry, Rhode Island, financing it with a $150,000 mortgage. Both Mason and Lisa signed the mortgage agreement, but only Mason signed the promissory note. The mortgage agreement included covenants requiring the "Borrowers" to defend the title, pay property taxes, and discharge any superior liens. In 2007, Deutsche Bank acquired the mortgage and note. Mason defaulted on the mortgage payments, and the Wilsons failed to pay property taxes, leading to a tax sale in 2014. Birdsong Associates bought the property and later obtained a court decree extinguishing Deutsche Bank's mortgage lien. Birdsong then sold the property to Coventry IV-14, RIGP, which eventually sold it to Dunkin Engineering Solutions, LLC, a company formed by Mason's parents. After Mason's parents' deaths, Lisa became the sole owner of Dunkin.Deutsche Bank sued Lisa, Mason, and Dunkin in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, alleging breach of the mortgage covenants and seeking equitable relief. The district court granted summary judgment to Lisa and Dunkin, finding that the mortgage agreement had been extinguished by the 2016 court decree and that Deutsche Bank had no remaining contractual rights. The court also rejected Deutsche Bank's equitable claims, concluding that there was no evidence of a scheme to benefit Lisa and Mason and that no benefit had accrued to Dunkin or Lisa from Deutsche Bank's payments.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the mortgage agreement did not unambiguously bind Lisa to the covenants, and thus, Deutsche Bank could not enforce those covenants against her. The court also found that Deutsche Bank failed to establish a fiduciary or confidential relationship necessary for its equitable claims and that Deutsche Bank's payments did not unjustly enrich Dunkin or Lisa. View "Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Dignity Health, operating as French Hospital Medical Center, filed a complaint against orthopedic surgeon Troy I. Mounts, M.D., and his corporation to recover an advance paid under their Physician Recruitment Agreement. Mounts filed a cross-complaint alleging retaliation for his complaints about patient care quality, interference with his economic opportunities, and unlawful business practices. Dignity responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, which the trial court initially denied. The appellate court reversed this decision and remanded the case for further consideration.Upon remand, the trial court concluded that Mounts had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court found that Dignity's actions were protected by the litigation privilege, the common interest privilege, and were barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, the court granted Dignity's motion to strike the cross-complaint and ordered Mounts to pay Dignity's attorney fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that all of Mounts' claims were based on conduct protected by the litigation privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (b)) and the common interest privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (c)). The court also found that Dignity's actions were immune under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 11137) and that some claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court upheld the trial court's orders granting the motion to strike and awarding attorney fees to Dignity. View "Dignity Health v. Mounts" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued a former employee, the defendant, for breaching a noncompete agreement, violating the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), and breaching a common-law duty of confidentiality. The defendant, who had signed a noncompete agreement as a condition of continued employment, later established his own floor coating business and used the plaintiff’s proprietary information to develop competing products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also assisted competitors in developing their products.In a separate but related case, the trial court found the noncompete agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and ruled that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. The court also determined that a payment made to the defendant after his resignation was severance pay, not compensation for reaffirming the noncompete agreement. Based on these findings, the trial court in the present case granted summary judgment for the defendant, applying collateral estoppel to preclude further consideration of the issues.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had incorrectly determined the noncompete agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the breach of the noncompete agreement claim and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the agreement was supported by adequate consideration. The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the severance payment was not consideration for reaffirming the noncompete agreement and that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. These rulings were binding in the present case. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, with further proceedings required to determine the enforceability and potential breach of the noncompete agreement. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a developer and manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued several individual and corporate defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets, among other claims. The key individual defendant, S, was a former employee who developed a product called Poly-Crete for the plaintiff. After resigning, S started his own business and developed similar products, allegedly using the plaintiff’s trade secrets. The plaintiff claimed that S and other defendants, including companies that tested and used S’s products, misappropriated its trade secrets.The trial court conducted a bench trial in three phases. In the first phase, the court found that the plaintiff’s formulas for Poly-Crete and other products were trade secrets but ruled that the noncompete agreement S signed was unenforceable due to lack of consideration. The court also found that the plaintiff’s common-law confidentiality claim was preempted by the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).In the second phase, the court found that S and some defendants misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets to create products like ProKrete and ProSpartic. However, it ruled that other defendants, including Indue, Krone, ECI, and Merrifield, did not misappropriate the trade secrets as they did not know or have reason to know about the misappropriation. The court also granted attorney’s fees to Krone and ECI, finding the plaintiff’s claims against them were made in bad faith.In the third phase, the court ordered the defendants who misappropriated the trade secrets to disgorge profits and enjoined them from using the trade secrets. The court also sanctioned the plaintiff for attempted spoliation of evidence by its president, F, who tried to remove incriminating photos from the company’s Facebook page during the trial.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on most issues but reversed the judgment regarding the enforceability of the noncompete agreement and the standard for determining misappropriation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these issues. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Robert and Stephen Samuelian (the Samuelians) and Life Generations Healthcare, LLC (the Company), which they co-founded along with Thomas Olds, Jr. The Samuelians sold a portion of their interest in the Company, and the new operating agreement included a noncompetition provision. The Samuelians later challenged this provision in arbitration, arguing it was unenforceable under California law.The arbitrator found the noncompetition provision invalid per se under California Business and Professions Code section 16600, as it arose from the sale of a business interest. The arbitrator also ruled that the Samuelians did not owe fiduciary duties to the Company because they were members of a manager-managed limited liability company. The Company argued that the arbitrator had legally erred by applying the per se standard instead of the reasonableness standard. The trial court reviewed the arbitrator’s ruling de novo, found no error, and confirmed the award.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the arbitrator had applied the wrong standard under section 16600. The court concluded that noncompetition agreements arising from the partial sale of a business interest should be evaluated under the reasonableness standard, not the per se standard. The court reasoned that a partial sale leaves the seller with some ongoing connection to the business, which could have procompetitive benefits. Therefore, such restraints require further scrutiny to determine their reasonableness.The court reversed the trial court’s judgment confirming the arbitration award and directed the trial court to enter an order denying the Samuelians’ petition to confirm the award and granting the Company’s motion to vacate the entire award, including the portion awarding attorney fees and costs. View "Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

Thomas Schmidt filed a lawsuit against his former attorney, Gary Dubin, and Dubin Law Offices, alleging that Dubin breached contractual and other duties in representing Schmidt in a separate lawsuit and improperly retained a $100,000 retainer. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted partial summary judgment in favor of Dubin, ruling that Schmidt's claims were time-barred and awarded Dubin attorneys' fees and costs as the prevailing party. Schmidt appealed the decision.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reviewed the case and found that the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment on Schmidt's breach of contract claims, as there were genuine issues of material fact regarding when the cause of action accrued. The ICA vacated the Circuit Court's judgment on these claims but affirmed the judgment in all other respects, including the award of attorneys' fees and costs to Dubin. Schmidt filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the ICA should also vacate the award of attorneys' fees and costs, which the ICA denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that the ICA erred in affirming the Circuit Court's judgment for attorneys' fees and costs after vacating the summary judgment on Schmidt's breach of contract claims. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment to the extent it affirmed the award of attorneys' fees and costs and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Supreme Court emphasized that when a judgment upon which attorneys' fees and costs were based is vacated, the related fees and costs should also be vacated. View "Schmidt v. Dubin" on Justia Law

Highland Capital Management, L.P. (Highland) was an investment fund managed by James Dondero, who also managed several of its subsidiaries. Highland had a practice of lending money to its subsidiaries and to Dondero personally. During Highland's bankruptcy proceedings, Dondero was removed, and a court-appointed board took over. The board attempted to collect on promissory notes executed in Highland's favor by the subsidiaries and Dondero. When they refused to pay, Highland initiated adversary actions in bankruptcy court.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas handled the initial proceedings. Highland filed several adversary actions against Dondero and the subsidiaries, seeking enforcement of the promissory notes. The cases were consolidated, and the bankruptcy court recommended granting summary judgment in favor of Highland. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas adopted the recommendations and entered judgment against all defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Highland had established a prima facie case for the validity and enforceability of the promissory notes. The court found that the defendants' arguments, including claims of oral agreements to forgive the loans, lack of authority to sign the notes, mutual mistake, prepayment, and Highland's responsibility to make payments, were unsupported by credible evidence. The court concluded that there were no genuine disputes of material fact and that Highland was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Highland Capital v. NexPoint Asset" on Justia Law

A business dispute arose between M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. (M&M), a Pennsylvania company, and Cambria Company, LLC (Cambria), a Minnesota company. Cambria manufactures and sells quartz surface products, while M&M sells custom countertops and cabinetry. In 2009, the two companies entered into a business relationship where M&M would purchase finished quartz products from Cambria. In 2017, Cambria terminated the relationship, claiming M&M owed over $180,000 for delivered products. Cambria sued for the unpaid amount, and M&M counterclaimed under the Minnesota Franchise Act, alleging unfair termination practices.The district court granted summary judgment for Cambria on M&M’s counterclaim, ruling that M&M did not pay a franchise fee, a requirement under the Act to qualify as a franchise. The court noted that payments for goods at a bona fide wholesale price are excluded from the definition of a franchise fee. The court of appeals affirmed, agreeing that M&M did not pay a franchise fee and additionally concluded that M&M, being an out-of-state company, was precluded from bringing a claim under the Act.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Minnesota Franchise Act does not categorically preclude an out-of-state company from enforcing a claim for unfair practices. However, the court agreed with the lower courts that M&M did not pay a franchise fee. The court found that M&M’s payments to Cambria for finished quartz products were at a bona fide wholesale price and did not include a hidden franchise fee. Therefore, the relationship between M&M and Cambria did not constitute a franchise under the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Cambria. View "Cambria Company, LLC vs. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc." on Justia Law