Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff worked for the Town of Camden for thirty-one years prior to being laid off. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the police union and the Town provided for recall of qualified employees based on seniority. During the twelve-month period after Plaintiff was laid off, vacancies opened in the Camden Police Department, but the Town did not recall Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his wife brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the Town had deprived Plaintiff, without due process of law, of his property interest in his right to be recalled. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded. On remand, the district court entered judgment for the Town, concluding that the CBA contained a condition precedent requiring Plaintiff to submit his address and phone number to the Town after his layoff in order to assert his recall rights and that Plaintiff did not submit such information post-layoff. The First Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that the CBA recall provision did not unambiguously create a condition precedent, and therefore, further fact-finding was necessary. View "Clukey v. Town of Camden, Maine" on Justia Law

Tipton, Gilbert, and Padgett worked for Treadway, under agreements that contained a noncompete provision: when you leave Treadway’s employ, for whatever reason, you will not compete with Treadway … by soliciting or accepting business from Treadway’s customers within your territory … for at least one (1) year after leaving; and . . . you will not solicit the employment of any Treadway representatives for at least one (1) year after leaving. Irby bought Treadway with an assignment of Treadway’s contracts, in 2012. Tipton, Gilbert, and Padgett became Irby employees, keeping essentially the same benefits and seniority. In 2013, the three left Irby to work for Wholesale. Tipton apparently spoke to Gilbert and Padgett about the move in advance. Irby sued, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with a contract. The district court granted summary judgment and awarded the defendants in excess of $200,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding genuine disputes of material fact about whether Wholesale recruited and hired Tipton, Gilbert, and Padgett so that they would solicit or accept business from Irby customers in their former territory within one year. View "Stuart C. Irby Co., Inc. v. Tipton" on Justia Law

Falco sold insurance for Farmers, under a 1990 Agent Agreement, which provided that Falco would be paid Contract Value upon termination of the Agreement. As a Farmers agent, Falco was entitled to borrow money from the Credit Union. In 2006, Falco obtained a $28,578.00 business loan and assigned his interest in his Agreement receivables—including Contract Value—as security. The loan document gave the Credit Union authority to demand payments that Farmers owed Falco; it could tender Falco’s resignation to levy on Falco’s Contract Value. Falco failed to make payments and filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, listing the loan on his schedules. Falco received a discharge in February 2011, covering his liability under his Credit Union loan. In April 2011, the Credit Union notified Farmers that Falco had defaulted and exercised the power of attorney to terminate his Agent Agreement. Farmers notified Falco that the resignation had been accepted, calculated Contract Value as $104,323.30, paid the Credit Union $29,180.92, and paid the balance to Falco. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that the Credit Union’s secured interest survived bankruptcy; it did not tortuously interfere with Falco’s Agreement because it had a legal right to terminate the Agreement; and Falco failed to show an underlying wrongful act or intentional tort as required under civil conspiracy. View "Falco v. Farmers Ins. Grp." on Justia Law

Falco sold insurance for Farmers, under a 1990 Agent Agreement, which provided that Falco would be paid Contract Value upon termination of the Agreement. As a Farmers agent, Falco was entitled to borrow money from the Credit Union. In 2006, Falco obtained a $28,578.00 business loan and assigned his interest in his Agreement receivables—including Contract Value—as security. The loan document gave the Credit Union authority to demand payments that Farmers owed Falco; it could tender Falco’s resignation to levy on Falco’s Contract Value. Falco failed to make payments and filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, listing the loan on his schedules. Falco received a discharge in February 2011, covering his liability under his Credit Union loan. In April 2011, the Credit Union notified Farmers that Falco had defaulted and exercised the power of attorney to terminate his Agent Agreement. Farmers notified Falco that the resignation had been accepted, calculated Contract Value as $104,323.30, paid the Credit Union $29,180.92, and paid the balance to Falco. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that the Credit Union’s secured interest survived bankruptcy; it did not tortuously interfere with Falco’s Agreement because it had a legal right to terminate the Agreement; and Falco failed to show an underlying wrongful act or intentional tort as required under civil conspiracy. View "Falco v. Farmers Ins. Grp." on Justia Law

Labonte Drywall Company signed a statewide agreement with Union, which allowed Labonte Drywall to hire Union carpenters for its business. The agreement required Labonte Drywall to allow an audit of its records. After Labonte Drywall did not respond to certain audit requests, Plaintiffs, the trustees for a group of Union-related benefits funds and their collection agency, filed this action against Labonte Drywall under ERISA and the Labor Management Relations Act, seeking enforcement of the agreement. After a bench trial, the district court found that Labonte Drywall had terminated the agreement, and therefore, Plaintiffs had no legal right to conduct the requested audit. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Union had actual notice of Labonte Drywall’s letter terminating its obligations under the agreement; and (2) Labonte Drywall had no duty to submit to Plaintiffs’ audit requests. View "New England Carpenters Central v. Labonte Drywall Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Labonte Drywall Company signed a statewide agreement with Union, which allowed Labonte Drywall to hire Union carpenters for its business. The agreement required Labonte Drywall to allow an audit of its records. After Labonte Drywall did not respond to certain audit requests, Plaintiffs, the trustees for a group of Union-related benefits funds and their collection agency, filed this action against Labonte Drywall under ERISA and the Labor Management Relations Act, seeking enforcement of the agreement. After a bench trial, the district court found that Labonte Drywall had terminated the agreement, and therefore, Plaintiffs had no legal right to conduct the requested audit. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Union had actual notice of Labonte Drywall’s letter terminating its obligations under the agreement; and (2) Labonte Drywall had no duty to submit to Plaintiffs’ audit requests. View "New England Carpenters Central v. Labonte Drywall Co., Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved a series of shifting employment arrangements between Plaintiff and Defendant, TSI Semiconductors America, LLC (TSA). In 2009, Plaintiff began working for Tejas Silicon, Inc. under a written employment agreement (Agreement). In 2011, corporate restructuring led to Plaintiff’s termination with Tejas and the offer of new employment with TSA. The parties amended the Agreement in certain respects. After Plaintiff was furloughed in 2012, Plaintiff sued TSA in a California state court alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and California state law claims. TSA removed the case to federal district court. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of TSA, concluding that neither the reorganization, the non-renewal of the Agreement, nor the layoff constituted a termination without cause that triggered the duty to pay severance under the Agreement. The First Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded, holding (1) because genuine issues of material fact permeated the record, the district court erred in granting summary judgment for TSA on Plaintiff’s claim for severance benefits arising out of the 2011 reorganization; and (2) the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims regarding the 2012 non-renewal and the 2012 layoff. View "Mason v. Telefunken Semiconductors America, LLC" on Justia Law

CentiMark, a commercial roofer, hired Turnell as a laborer in 1978. In 1988 CentiMark promoted him to Chicago District Operations Manager. In his employment agreement, Turnell agreed to a non-disclosure provision and to restrictive covenants that prohibit “engag[ing] … in any Competing Business” during his employment and for two years afterward in any of the “regions and/or divisions and/or territories” in which he “operated” for CentiMark and “solicit[ing] the trade of, or trade with,” any of CentiMark’s “customers or suppliers, or prospective customers or suppliers” during his employment and for two years afterward. Turnell became Senior Vice President and Midwest Regional Manager. The company fired him in 2013, claiming that Turnell had misappropriated company resources and covered up fraudulent billing by his wife's company. Turnell claims the real reasons were his age, health issues, and high compensation. Turnell made little effort to find a job outside commercial roofing, but accepted an offer from Windward Roofing and contacted CentiMark customers. The court found Turnell’s covenants too broad, and entered a preliminary injunction, affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, that “Turnell shall not sell, attempt to sell, or help sell any products or services, or any combination thereof, related to commercial roofing to any person or entity who was a customer of Centimark Corporation as of January 8, 2013 and who is located in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, or Wisconsin” and required CentiMark to post a $250,000 bond. View "Turnell v. Centimark Corp." on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a district court’s decision to affirm a magistrate court’s order granting Michelle Campbell relief on her breach of contract claim. This case stemmed from an employment offer Parkway Surgery Center, LLC made to Campbell. The offer included assurances that Parkway would “take care of” a loan Campbell had with her previous employer, Bingham Memorial Hospital (BMH). When Parkway refused to pay the obligation as promised, Campbell filed suit for a breach of contract. Following a bench trial, the magistrate court ruled in favor of Campbell and awarded her damages in the amount of the loan plus interest. Parkway appealed to the district court, which affirmed the magistrate’s order, but remanded to the magistrate court to reform the judgment to grant Campbell specific performance. Parkway appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. On appeal, Parkway raised several arguments, including that the district court erred when it: (1) affirmed the magistrate court’s order; (2) determined Campbell was entitled to specific performance; (3) determined the statute of frauds did not apply in this case; and (4) awarded attorney fees to Campbell. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in reforming the magistrate court's judgment to grant Campbell specific performance. The court affirmed the district court in all other respects. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Campbell v. Parkway Surgery" on Justia Law

Employees of Instant, an information-technology staffing firm sign agreements in which they promise not to solicit business from Instant’s clients, not to recruit Instant’s employees to other jobs, and not to disclose the firm’s sensitive information to outsiders. DeFazio was Instant’s Vice President until 2012, when she was fired. She was already cofounding Connect, a new tech-staffing firm, and began working there immediately, along with several coworkers she persuaded to leave Instant. Connect won business from several of Instant’s recent clients. Instant sued DeFazio and others for breaching the restrictive covenants and under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030. DeFazio counterclaimed, alleging that Instant shortchanged her on a bonus. The court concluded that no one is liable to anyone else. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that defendants did not leak or otherwise misuse Instant’s proprietary data. Defendants admitted breaching the covenants not to solicit and not to recruit, but in Illinois a restrictive covenant in an employment agreement is valid only if it serves a “legitimate business interest.” The district court concluded that neither covenant did. Tech-staffing firms do not build relationships with clients that would justify restricting their employees from setting out on their own. View "Instant Tech. LLC v. DeFazio" on Justia Law