Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

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

Graham sold insurance for American Family from 1988 until 2011. In 1996, they entered into an Agent Agreement. In 2010, following a customer complaint, American Family concluded that Graham had increased coverage and added endorsements without customer permission, increasing premiums; improperly applied multi-vehicle discounts to accounts with only one car; and changed vehicle-rating symbols used to assign risk and determine appropriate premiums for automobile insurance. American Famly terminated the Agreement. Weeks later, Graham formed an independent agency and sent letters to approximately 1,500 of his former American Family customers telling them he no longer represented American Family and had signed an agreement not to solicit or induce former customers for one year, but was not prohibited from serving needs not covered by American Family. Graham stated he now represented over 50 companies and could offer clients “more choices, expanded coverage, and excellent rates” that might be “better suited for your needs.” If a former customer contacted Graham, the customer was asked to sign a “non-inducement form.” American Family sued. Graham counterclaimed for wrongful termination. American Family asserted that Graham’s conduct qualified as “dishonest,” obviating the need for notice under the Agreement. The Eighth Circuit affirmed enforcement of a stipulated damages clause in the Agreement, in favor of American Family. View "Am. Family Mut, Ins. Co. v. Graham" on Justia Law

Lawson sold computer maintenance and support services for StorageTek. He was paid a base salary and commissions on his sales under the company’s annual incentive plan. Sun Microsystems acquired StorageTek in 2005. At the time Lawson was working on a large sale to JPMorgan Chase, but the deal did not close until 2006. If StorageTek’s 2005 incentive plan applied, Lawson would earn a commission, as high as $1.8 million. If the sale fell under Sun’s 2006 incentive plan, his commission would be about $54,000. Sun determined that the 2006 plan applied. Lawson sued for breach of contract and violation of Indiana’s Wage Claim Statute. The district court rejected the statutory wage claim but submitted the contract claim to a jury, which awarded Lawson $1.5 million in damages. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The sale did not qualify for a commission under the terms of the 2005 plan. Although the original plan documents said the plan would remain in effect until superseded by a new one, a September 2005 amendment set a definite termination date for the plan year: December 25, 2005. To earn a commission under the 2005 plan, sales had to be final and invoiced by that date. View "Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff in the underlying case, Brian Barze, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Jefferson Circuit Court to set aside an order sealing a motion to stay filed by one of the defendants, James Holbrook. Barze filed suit against Sterne Agee Group, Inc., and Holbrook, the then CEO of Sterne Agee. Barze included claims of promissory fraud and fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, conversion, and defamation. In his complaint, Barze alleged that, in spring 2009, Sterne Agee had approached him about leaving his old company and becoming the chief financial officer ("CFO") of Sterne Agee and that Holbrook had told him that, if he joined Sterne Agee, Sterne Agee would pay him severance pay of at least one year's salary and bonus if the job with Sterne Agee did not work out. Barze alleged that he relied on Holbrook's promises and representations when he agreed to accept the job at Sterne Agee and when he left his former employer and gave up his opportunities there. Barze asserted that, after he started working with Sterne Agee, he was presented with an employment agreement to sign; that Holbrook assured him that the employment agreement was signed by all employees; that Holbrook assured him that Holbrook could and would take care of Barze and honor their oral agreement regarding the severance pay of at least one year's salary and bonus; and that Holbrook told Barze that he was committed to Barze as the long-term CFO of Sterne Agee. Barze asserted that, in reliance on Holbrook's assertions, he signed the employment agreement. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not comply with the controlling case law procedure set forth in "Holland v. Eads" (614 So.2d 1012 (Ala. 1993)), it exceeded its discretion when it granted Holbrook's motion and directed the circuit clerk to seal Holbrook's motion to stay the underlying civil action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted the petition for the writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate its July 23, 2014, order granting Holbrook's motion for leave to file his motion to stay under seal and sealing Holbrook's motion to stay. View "Ex parte Barze." on Justia Law

Krista Gilmore was employed by Excellence Community Management (ECM), an LLC, and signed an employment agreement containing restrictive covenants. The owners and operators of ECM later sold 100 percent of their membership interest in the LLC to First Services Residential Management Nevada (FSRM). Thereafter, Gilmore’s employment with ECM terminated, and Gilmore began working for Mesa Management, LLC. ECM sent Gilmore a cease-and-desist letter alleging that Gilmore violated her employment agreement by contacting ECM’s clients and soliciting them to hire Mesa. ECM filed a complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief against Gilmore and Mesa (collectively, Respondents). The district court denied ECM’s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the agreement was not assignable to FSRM without Gilmore consenting to the assignment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the sale of 100 percent of the membership interest in an LLC does not affect the enforcement of an employee’s employment contract containing a restrictive covenant because such a sale does not create a new entity, and therefore, ECM may enforce a restrictive covenant in Gilmore’s employment contract without Gilmore’s consent of assignment; but (2) ECM failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm for which compensatory damages were not an adequate remedy if the district court did not enter a preliminary injunction. View "Excellence Cmty. Mgmt. v. Gilmore" on Justia Law

Ben Lack was employed as a draftsman at Marshall Hunn's architectural design firm. After Lack resigned from his position from a project for Hunn's client, Dan Wilson Homes, Dan Wilson hired Lack to complete the project. Hunn filed suit alleging that Lack and Wilson secretly agreed to cut Hunn out of the business relationship. The district court granted summary judgment to Lack and Wilson on many claims and ruled in favor of them on the remaining claims. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Lack and Wilson never made the alleged secret agreement and Hunn's legal theories lack merit. View "Hunn v. Dan Wilson Homes Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-insurance intermediaries were Brown & Brown, Inc., a Florida corporation, and its New York subsidiary, Brown & Brown of New York, Inc. (BBNY). When Theresa Johnson began working for BBNY she signed an employment agreement that contained a Florida choice-of-law provision and a non-solicitation provision precluding Johnson from soliciting, accepting, or servicing any customer of Plaintiffs. One month after Johnson was terminated, she began working for a competitor of BBNY. Plaintiffs commenced this action against Johnson and her new employer (collectively, Defendants) alleging that Johnson breached the employment agreement by soliciting Plaintiffs’ customers. The Appellate Division dismissed the portion of the breach of contract cause of action based on the non-solicitation provision, concluding that the provision was overbroad and unenforceable and that the choice-of-law provision was unenforceable as against public policy. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the agreement’s choice-of-law provision was unenforceable in relation to the non-solicitation provision; and (2) questions of fact existed as to whether Plaintiffs engaged in overreaching or used coercion to obtain the non-solicitation restrictive covenant, and therefore, dismissal was inappropriate. View "Brown & Brown, Inc. v Johnson" on Justia Law