Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

LKQ Corporation, a Delaware corporation in the auto salvage and recycled parts business, designated certain employees as "Key Persons" eligible for Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) through RSU Agreements. These agreements included non-competition clauses and provisions for forfeiture of RSUs and any stock issued if the employee competed with LKQ within nine months post-departure. Robert Rutledge, a plant manager at LKQ, signed these agreements and received stock under them. In April 2021, Rutledge resigned and joined a competitor shortly after.LKQ sued Rutledge in Illinois federal court for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking to enjoin him from working for a competitor and to recover proceeds from the sale of LKQ stock. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim and granted summary judgment for Rutledge on the contract claims, holding that the non-competition provisions were unreasonable restraints of trade under Illinois law and unenforceable under Delaware law, based on the Court of Chancery's decision in Ainslie v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim and the summary judgment ruling on the Restrictive Covenant Agreements. However, it was uncertain about the enforceability of the RSU Agreements' forfeiture-for-competition provisions under Delaware law, especially after the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's decision in Cantor Fitzgerald. The Seventh Circuit certified two questions to the Delaware Supreme Court regarding the applicability of Cantor Fitzgerald outside the limited partnership context.The Delaware Supreme Court held that the principles from Cantor Fitzgerald, which endorse the employee choice doctrine and prioritize freedom of contract, apply beyond the limited partnership context, including to RSU agreements. The court emphasized that forfeiture-for-competition provisions do not restrict competition or an employee's ability to work and should be treated as enforceable terms subject to ordinary breach of contract defenses. View "LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge" on Justia Law

Four former employees of Litster Frost Injury Lawyers (LFIL) filed a lawsuit against LFIL and its former sole shareholder, Martha Frost, for unpaid wages and breach of an employment agreement. They claimed LFIL owed them compensation in the form of wages, bonuses, profit sharing, and other expenses incurred while employed. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of LFIL, concluding that the employees' claims were time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Idaho Code section 45-614 and that the employment agreement was an unenforceable "agreement to agree."The employees appealed, arguing that the district court erred in determining that the provisions of the employment agreement were not severable or enforceable and that the court should have supplied a "reasonable time" for performance. LFIL cross-appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying their request for attorney fees following summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the employees' breach of contract claims because the employment agreement was unenforceable. The court found that the agreement's essential terms were too indefinite and subject to future negotiations. However, the court reversed the district court's decision regarding Sarah's reimbursement claim, finding that issues of material fact existed as to whether her claim fell within Idaho's Wage Claim Act. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on all other claims.The Supreme Court also reversed the district court's decision on attorney fees, holding that the district court did not apply the correct legal standard. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Attorney fees on appeal were awarded to LFIL for the time spent responding to certain claims, and costs were awarded to LFIL. View "Litster v. Litster Frost Injury Lawyers PLLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, employees of the State of California providing dental care to inmates, filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for time spent on pre- and post-shift safety and security activities. These activities included going through security and handling alarm devices. The defendants, including the State of California and related departments, filed a demurrer, arguing that these activities were not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, leading to the plaintiffs' appeal.The trial court ruled that the activities in question were not integral and indispensable to the plaintiffs' principal work of providing dental care, thus not compensable under the FLSA. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court improperly decided a factual question and that their claims were viable. The defendants maintained that the trial court's decision was correct and also argued that the plaintiffs' claims were precluded by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing their employment, that the relevant statutes did not apply to government employers, that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust contractual remedies, and that the claims were time-barred.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, concluded that the trial court erred in not accepting the plaintiffs' allegations as true for the purposes of the demurrer. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had stated a claim for breach of contract and that the defendants' affirmative defense of failure to exhaust contractual remedies could not be resolved at the demurrer stage. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' contract claim was not time-barred. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision in part and reversed it in part, allowing the breach of contract claim to proceed. View "Bath v. State" on Justia Law

Richard Andrew Justice filed a claim against the Georgia Department of Public Safety (DPS) for breach of an employment contract, alleging that DPS failed to pay him for overtime hours as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Justice argued that the FLSA provisions were incorporated into his employment contract. The central issue was whether Justice had demonstrated the existence of a written contract sufficient to overcome DPS’s motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds.The trial court allowed limited discovery and reviewed documents submitted by Justice, including a written offer of employment and subsequent communications. The trial court ultimately granted DPS’s motion to dismiss, finding that the documents did not constitute a valid written contract and that there was no meeting of the minds regarding FLSA overtime compensation provisions. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the documents did form a written contract that included FLSA provisions, thereby waiving sovereign immunity.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and determined that Justice had shown the existence of a written contract with DPS, which established a waiver of sovereign immunity under the ex contractu clause of the Georgia Constitution. The Court held that the question of whether the FLSA obligations were part of the written contract was a merits question, not a sovereign immunity question, and thus was not properly before the trial court on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. JUSTICE" on Justia Law

Santanu Das, a sales associate at Tata Consultancy Services, participated in a compensation incentive plan that promised a bonus exceeding $400,000 for achieving certain sales targets. Das met the target but was paid less than $100,000. He sued Tata under Illinois law, which requires employers to pay all agreed-upon compensation. Tata argued that disclaimers in the incentive plan negated any agreement to pay the bonus. The district court dismissed Das’s complaint, leading to this appeal.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially dismissed Das’s claims without prejudice. Das amended his complaint, adding breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation claims. The district court dismissed the repleaded claims with prejudice but allowed Das to replead the new claims. Das chose to appeal only the Wage Act and fraudulent misrepresentation claims. The district court found that the disclaimers in the incentive plan prevented the formation of an agreement to pay wages and that Das’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim lacked the necessary particularity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that Illinois law does not treat disclaimers as necessarily preventing the formation of mutual assent to terms. The court noted that past practices between Das and Tata could establish mutual assent. The court concluded that Das had plausibly alleged that Tata agreed to pay him the full bonus, reversing the district court’s dismissal of the Wage Act claim. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, as Das failed to allege a scheme to defraud.The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on the Wage Act claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The dismissal of the fraudulent misrepresentation claim was affirmed. View "Das v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited" on Justia Law

The case involves eight multiemployer benefit plans (the "Funds") seeking to recover delinquent contributions from Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. for health, pension, and other benefits for sheet metal workers. The Funds allege that Stromberg underpaid contributions owed under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Union (SMART Union) by hiring temporary workers through staffing agencies without making the required contributions.Initially filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court denied Stromberg’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Funds’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and awarded the Funds over $823,000 in delinquent contributions and more than $430,000 in liquidated damages and interest. Stromberg appealed, challenging both the liability and damages rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s liability ruling, agreeing that the 2019 Settlement between Stromberg and Local 5 did not preclude the Funds from seeking delinquent contributions. The court emphasized that multiemployer benefit plans have distinct interests from local unions and are not bound by settlements to which they are not parties.However, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s damages ruling. The appellate court concluded that while the Funds could rely on the CBA’s default staffing ratio to approximate damages due to Stromberg’s failure to maintain adequate records, Stromberg had presented sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Funds’ damages calculation. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address the disputed damages issue. View "Sheet Metal Workers' Health & Welfare Fund of North Carolina v. Stromberg Metal Works, Inc." on Justia Law

Thomas Mooney, the plaintiff, was employed as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) for Dr. Douglas Fife, Heather Fife, and Fife Dermatology, PC, doing business as Vivida Dermatology. Mooney raised concerns about improper billing practices at Vivida. After a conversation with Dr. Ken Landow, a dermatologist from another practice, Vivida terminated Mooney's employment, citing unauthorized disclosure of confidential information in violation of his employment agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of Vivida on all three of Mooney's claims: False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court concluded that Mooney's reporting of billing irregularities did not put Vivida on notice of potentially protected conduct under the FCA. It also found that Mooney had violated the confidentiality provision of his employment agreement and that his claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing failed because he did not argue that Vivida literally complied with the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment. The appellate court held that the district court erred in applying the relevant substantive law for Mooney's FCA retaliation claim and failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mooney for his breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. The Ninth Circuit clarified that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to FCA retaliation claims and that the Moore test for protected conduct continues to apply following the 2009 amendment to the FCA. The court concluded that Mooney engaged in protected conduct, satisfied the notice requirement, and established genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Vivida's reasons for his termination were pretextual. The court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "MOONEY V. FIFE" on Justia Law

Michael Hermalyn, a former employee of DraftKings, left his position to join a rival company, Fanatics, based in California. DraftKings, headquartered in Massachusetts, claimed that Hermalyn's new role violated a noncompete agreement he had signed, which included a Massachusetts choice-of-law provision and a one-year noncompete clause. DraftKings sued Hermalyn in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for breach of the noncompete agreement.The district court sided with DraftKings, applying Massachusetts law to determine the enforceability of the noncompete agreement. The court found the noncompete enforceable and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Hermalyn from competing against DraftKings in the United States for one year. Hermalyn appealed, arguing that California law, which generally bans noncompetes, should apply instead of Massachusetts law. Alternatively, he argued that if Massachusetts law applied, the injunction should exclude California.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the district judge abused her discretion in granting the preliminary injunction and whether she made any legal errors in applying Massachusetts law. The appellate court found that Massachusetts law was correctly applied, noting that Massachusetts generally respects choice-of-law provisions unless they violate a fundamental policy of another state with a materially greater interest. The court concluded that Hermalyn failed to demonstrate that California's interest in banning noncompetes was materially greater than Massachusetts's interest in enforcing them.The First Circuit also upheld the scope of the preliminary injunction, rejecting Hermalyn's argument to exclude California. The court reasoned that excluding California would undermine the effectiveness of the injunction, as Hermalyn's role involved interacting with clients in states where online sports betting is legal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision and awarded costs to DraftKings. View "DraftKings Inc. v. Hermalyn" 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