Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2013, the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima (Lima) and Rutas de Lima S.A.C. (Rutas) entered into a Concession Contract for the construction and operation of urban roads in Lima, Peru. Rutas agreed to finance and manage the project in exchange for toll revenue, while Lima was responsible for preliminary infrastructure activities. Subsequent agreements transferred these preliminary responsibilities to Rutas in exchange for toll rate increases. Social protests erupted in response to these increases, leading Lima to close a toll unit and refuse further rate hikes. Rutas initiated two international arbitrations, claiming Lima breached the contract. Lima argued the contract was void due to bribery by Rutas’s parent company, Odebrecht S.A.The District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the case after two arbitration tribunals ruled in favor of Rutas, finding insufficient evidence of corruption linked to the Concession Contract. Lima sought to vacate the arbitration awards, citing violations of U.S. public policy against corruption, fraud by Rutas in discovery, and misconduct by the second tribunal in excluding evidence. The District Court denied Lima’s petitions and confirmed the awards, concluding that Lima failed to prove the contract was obtained through bribery and that any alleged discovery misconduct did not prejudice Lima’s case.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the arbitration tribunals’ findings were supported by the record and that there was no sufficient evidence linking Odebrecht’s bribes to the Concession Contract. The court also found no merit in Lima’s claims of discovery fraud and tribunal misconduct, noting that Lima suffered no prejudice from the exclusion of evidence. The court concluded that enforcing the arbitration awards did not violate U.S. public policy. View "Metropolitan Municipality of Lima v. Rutas De Lima S.A.C." on Justia Law

Two air ambulance providers, Guardian Flight, LLC, and Med-Trans Corporation, sued Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) for failing to timely pay dispute resolution awards under the No Surprises Act (NSA). The providers also claimed that HCSC improperly denied benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and was unjustly enriched under Texas law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the providers' complaint. The court found that the NSA does not provide a private right of action for enforcing dispute resolution awards. It also dismissed the ERISA claim for lack of standing, as the providers did not show that the beneficiaries suffered any injury since the NSA shields them from liability. Lastly, the court dismissed the quantum meruit claim, stating that the providers did not perform their services for HCSC's benefit. The court also denied the providers' request for leave to amend their complaint, deeming it futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the NSA does not contain a private right of action and that the statute's text and structure support this conclusion. The court also upheld the dismissal of the ERISA claim, reiterating that the beneficiaries did not suffer any concrete injury. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the quantum meruit claim, as the providers did not render services for HCSC's benefit. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint. View "Guardian Flight v. Health Care Service" on Justia Law

West Virginia filed a complaint in state court against CaremarkPCS Health, LLC, a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), alleging that Caremark unlawfully drove up the cost of insulin, causing financial harm to the state. The complaint included state law claims of civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of contract. Caremark removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), arguing that its conduct in negotiating rebates, which is central to the complaint, was performed under the direction of the federal government as part of its work for federal health plans.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia found that removal was unwarranted and remanded the case to state court. The district court concluded that Caremark failed to meet the requirements for federal officer removal and noted that West Virginia had disclaimed any federal claims in its complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Caremark was entitled to remove the case to federal court under § 1442(a)(1). The court found that Caremark acted under a federal officer because it administered health benefits for federal employees under contracts with FEHBA carriers, which are supervised by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The court also determined that Caremark had a colorable federal defense, specifically that federal law preempted West Virginia's claims. Finally, the court concluded that the charged conduct was related to Caremark's federal work, as the rebate negotiations for federal and non-federal clients were indivisible. Thus, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's remand decision and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "West Virginia ex rel. Hunt v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The case involves Billings County and its commissioners, who appealed a district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction preventing them from entering the property of Sandra Short, David Short, Donald Short, and Sarah Sarbacker. The dispute centers on the County's attempt to use eminent domain to construct a bridge over the Little Missouri River, known as the Little Missouri River Crossing (LMRC). The Shorts had previously settled a lawsuit with the County in 2021, where the County agreed not to pursue eminent domain for the LMRC project. Despite this, a newly elected Board of Commissioners decided to proceed with the project in 2023, leading the Shorts to file a new lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the Shorts, finding that they were likely to succeed on their breach-of-contract claim based on the Settlement Agreement. The court refrained from deciding on the validity of the Settlement Agreement, leaving that issue for the state court to address. The district court also stayed its proceedings, pending the outcome of the state court case, and denied the County's motion to dismiss without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the County could not lawfully contract away its power of eminent domain, as it is an essential attribute of sovereignty. The court concluded that the Settlement Agreement was contrary to law and that the Shorts were not likely to succeed on their breach-of-contract claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Short v. Billings County" on Justia Law

The Borough of Englewood Cliffs filed a complaint and an amended complaint against its former attorneys and a builder, alleging professional malpractice, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. The Borough's actions followed a previous affordable housing litigation where the Borough did not prevail and subsequently settled with the builder. The Borough's new council, elected after a municipal election, pursued the litigation despite warnings from the defendants that the claims were frivolous.The trial court dismissed the Borough's complaints with prejudice, finding that the Borough acted in bad faith to harass, delay, and cause malicious injury. The court awarded the defendants attorney fees and costs under New Jersey’s Frivolous Litigation Statute (FLS), totaling $216,484.45. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that a public entity is not immune from sanctions under the FLS.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that municipalities and municipal corporations that engage in frivolous litigation are subject to sanctions under the FLS. The Court found that the FLS does not provide immunity to municipalities and that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not protect municipalities from liability under the FLS. The Court emphasized that the FLS aims to deter frivolous litigation and compensate the victims of such actions. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed as modified, holding the Borough liable for the sanctions imposed. View "Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner" on Justia Law

Anthology, Inc. entered into a 10-year contract with Tarrant County College District (TCCD) in June 2022 to provide Enterprise Resource Planning products and services for approximately $42 million, plus annual fees. In October 2023, TCCD terminated the contract without cause, as permitted by the contract, but refused to pay the early termination fee and demanded a refund of about $1.7 million already paid. Anthology sued TCCD in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for breach of contract.TCCD moved to dismiss the case under Federal Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing four grounds: entitlement to immunity from suit under Texas law, state sovereign immunity, lack of diversity jurisdiction, and a statutory bar on recovering damages under Texas law. The district court granted TCCD’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion, dismissing Anthology’s claims without prejudice, based on TCCD’s entitlement to immunity from suit under Texas law, without addressing the other grounds for dismissal. Anthology appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its decision. The appellate court held that state-law immunity cannot limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, which is defined by the Constitution and Congress. Therefore, the district court should not have dismissed the case based on state-law immunity without first addressing the jurisdictional issues of state sovereign immunity and the absence of complete diversity. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Anthology v. Tarrant County College District" on Justia Law

In 2019, the Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT) increased the rental fees for hangar space at state-owned airports. Five tenants, who own hangar facilities at the Northeast Kingdom International Airport and the Stowe-Morrisville State Airport, appealed the rate increases to the Transportation Board. They argued that the rent increase did not comply with the terms of their leases and was arbitrary. The leases allowed AOT to adjust rent based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), current market value for the land, and maintenance costs for the airport. The tenants contended that AOT improperly considered changes outside the previous lease term.The Transportation Board consolidated the tenants' appeals and reviewed the administrative records and memoranda submitted by both parties. The Board found that AOT had invested significantly in airport improvements and conducted a market-value analysis for leased space. However, the Board noted that details of the analysis were not included in the administrative record. The Board concluded that AOT was permitted to consider changes to market value and maintenance costs outside of the prior lease term but admonished AOT to provide a clearer analysis in the future.The tenants appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that the rent increases were arbitrary and capricious due to a lack of transparent methodology. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's conclusion that AOT could consider changes outside the prior lease term but reversed and remanded the decision concerning the fairness of the rent increases. The Court held that the Board should have sought a complete record from AOT to determine whether the rent levels were fair and conducted a new adjudication consistent with this opinion. View "In re State Airport Hangar Lease Disputes" on Justia Law

Intellectual Capitol, Inc., JMI Sports, and JMIS College, LLC (Appellants) obtained contracts through the state procurement process with the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (WCC) and Clemson University (Respondents). Disputes arose under these contracts, leading Respondents to file Requests for Resolution of Contract Controversy with the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) for the State of South Carolina. Appellants then filed separate declaratory judgment actions in circuit court, challenging the constitutionality of section 11-35-4230 of the South Carolina Code, which grants the CPO exclusive jurisdiction over state contract disputes.The circuit court granted Respondents' motions to dismiss the declaratory judgment actions, ruling that section 11-35-4230 placed exclusive jurisdiction over the State's contract disputes with the CPO. The court also dismissed Appellants' constitutional claims as premature due to their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellants appealed this decision.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment actions, but modified the reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the contracts between Appellants and Respondents contained a clear choice-of-forum provision, which unambiguously gave the CPO exclusive authority to resolve disputes. By agreeing to this provision, Appellants waived their right to have their disputes decided by a court of the unified judicial system. Consequently, there was no justiciable controversy, rendering the constitutional challenge to section 11-35-4230 a purely academic exercise. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment actions, as there were no legal rights at issue. View "Intellectual Capital, Inc. v. Chief Procurement Officer" on Justia Law

The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) awarded a contract to OC 405 Partners Joint Venture (OC 405) for improvements to Interstate 405. OC 405 then awarded subcontracting work to Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB). However, the parties disagreed on the scope of the subcontract work and did not execute a written subcontract. OC 405 subsequently contracted with another subcontractor, leading GSB to file a lawsuit seeking benefit of the bargain damages, claiming OC 405 did not comply with Public Contract Code section 4107’s substitution procedures.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of OC 405 and other defendants, holding that GSB was not entitled to the protections of section 4107 because it did not meet the requirements of section 4100 et seq. Specifically, GSB was not a "listed subcontractor" in the original bid, and its proposed work did not exceed one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor’s total bid, a threshold requirement under section 4104.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that section 4107’s substitution procedures did not apply to OC 405’s substitution of GSB. The court emphasized that the protections of section 4100 et seq. only apply to subcontractors whose proposed work exceeds the one-half of 1 percent threshold of the prime contractor’s total bid. Since GSB’s bid did not meet this threshold, it was not entitled to the protections under section 4107. The court also noted that the contractual provisions in the prime contract did not alter this statutory requirement. Thus, the judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v. Astaldi Construction" on Justia Law

Badlia Brothers, LLC, a check-cashing business, cashed 15 checks issued by the State of Maryland. These checks had already been paid by the State before Badlia presented them for payment. Some checks were deposited using a mobile app, creating "substitute checks," and were then fraudulently or negligently presented to Badlia. Others were reported lost or stolen, leading the State to issue stop payment orders and replacement checks, which were also cashed by Badlia. Badlia accepted the checks without knowledge of prior payments and sought payment from the State, which refused.Badlia filed complaints in the District Court of Maryland, claiming the right to enforce the checks as a holder in due course. The court consolidated the cases, ruled that the State enjoyed qualified immunity, and dismissed the cases. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City reversed, holding that a check is a contract, and thus, the State had waived sovereign immunity. On remand, the District Court found that Badlia was a holder in due course entitled to enforce the checks. The Circuit Court affirmed, and the State petitioned for certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that a check is a contract for purposes of the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity under § 12-201(a) of the State Government Article. The court affirmed the Circuit Court's decision, concluding that the State has waived sovereign immunity for claims by a holder in due course seeking payment on an authorized State-issued check. View "Comptroller v. Badlia Brothers, LLC" on Justia Law