Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Alaska Rent-A-Car sued Avis claiming that Avis had breached a settlement agreement causing Alaska business to be switched to Budget Rent-A-Car, its local competitor. The district court granted a partial summary judgment, establishing that Alaska Rent-A-Car was a party to the settlement agreement, and that Avis had breached the agreement by using the same personnel to sell and market both Avis and Budget cars. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Alaska Rent-A-Car for $16 million and Avis appealed. The court held that the district court was correct in ruling that Alaska Rent-A-Car was a party to the settlement agreement by virtue of its sufficiently timely joinder. The court rejected Avis's peremptory challenge claim under Batson v. Kentucky. The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the jury to listen to Alaska Rent-A-Car's expert as well as Avis's. The evidence sufficed to establish reasonable certainty for the damages awarded. The district court did not err by applying Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82 to the attorney's fee award. The parties agreed that the amount of prejudgment interest was awarded in error, double counting, and that the judgment should be reduced. View "Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Prius owners, brought a putative class action suit against Toyota, alleging that they experienced defects in their anti-lock brake systems (ABS), resulting in increased stopping distances. On appeal, Toyota sought review of the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that Toyota could not compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims. The district court had the authority to decide whether Toyota, a nonsignatory to the Purchase Agreement, could compel arbitration. The court discerned no reason that plaintiffs should be equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kramer, et al v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant, the servicer of their home loan, violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2605, because it did not respond adequately to three letters in which they challenged the monthly payment due on their loan. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim because a servicer must receive a valid "qualified written request" to incur the duty to respond under section 2605, and it determined that the letters were not qualified written requests that triggered the statutory duty. Because plaintiffs' letters to defendant challenged the terms of their loans and requested modification of various loan and mortgage documents, they were not qualified written requests relating to the servicing of plaintiffs' loan. Because section 2605 did not require a servicer to respond to such requests, the district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' claim and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Medrano, et al v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, et al" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, Motorola appealed from the district court's preliminary injunction to enjoin Motorola temporarily from enforcing a patent injunction that it obtained against Microsoft in Germany. The underlying case before the district court concerned how to interpret and enforce patent-holders' commitments to industry standard-setting organizations (SSOs), which established technical specifications to ensure that products from different manufacturers were compatible with each other. Specifically, the case involved the H.264 video coding standard set by International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and the 802.11 wireless local area network standard set by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The court held that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the district court's narrowly tailored preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from a decision of the United States tax court concluding that he owed $128,292 in income tax for the 2004 taxable year. Petitioner entered into an agreement with Optech Limited pursuant to which he transferred floating rate notes (FRNs) worth approximately $1 million to Optech in return for a nonrecourse loan of ninety percent of the FRNs' value. The agreement gave Optech the right to receive all dividends and interest on the FRNs and the right to sell the FRNs during the loan term without Petitioner's consent. Instead of holding the FRNs as collateral for the loan, Optech sold the FRNs and transferred ninety percent of the proceeds to Petitioner. Petitioner did not report that he had sold the FRNs in his 2004 federal income tax return. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the tax court, holding that Petitioner's transaction with Optech constituted a sale for tax purposes despite its taking the form of a loan because the burdens and benefits of owning the FRNs were transferred to Optech. View "Sollberger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The Scotts Company, an Ohio LLC, brought a diversity action against Seeds, Inc., a Washington corporation, in federal district court. Thereafter, Millhorn Farmers, Maple Leaf Farms, Mica Creek, and Tim Freeburg (Growers) sued Seeds and Scotts in Washington state court. Maple Leaf Farms and Mica Creek were Washington corporations, Millhorn Farms was an Idaho corporation, and Tim Freeburg was a citizen of Idaho. Scotts subsequently filed an amended complaint in federal court adding the Growers as defendants and seeking declaratory relief. The district court subsequently realigned the Growers and plaintiffs and Seeds and Scotts as defendants and held, alternatively, that it would stay the federal proceedings in favor of the related state court proceedings under either the Brillhart doctrine or the Colorado River doctrine. Because the parties' realignment resulted in the absence of complete diversity of citizenship between defendant Seeds and newly-aligned plaintiffs-Growers, the district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court should not have declined to entertain the claim for declaratory relief under the Brillhart doctrine, and instead, the claims should have been evaluated under the Colorado River doctrine. Remanded. View "Scotts Co., LLC v. Seeds, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA) against Lockheed Martin Corporation, alleging that Lockheed defrauded the United States Air Force under a contract for the Range Standardization and Automation IIA program concerning software and hardware used to support space launch operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base and Cape Kennedy. Hooper filed his suit in the Maryland district court, which transferred the suit to the central district of California on forum non conveniens grounds. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Lockheed on all grounds. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings and conclusion that Hooper failed to establish his claims of fraudulent use of the software and defective testing procedures because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Lockheed "knowingly" submitted a false claim; and (2) reversed the district court's dismissal of (i) Hooper's wrongful discharge claim as barred by California's two-year statute of limitations, holding that Maryland's three-year statute of limitations applied here, and (ii) Hooper's claim that Lockheed violated the FCA by knowingly underbidding the contract. View "Hooper v. Lockheed Martin Corp." on Justia Law

Pentonville Developers, Ltd. and Marblearch Trading, Ltd., two Cyprus oil brokerage companies, sued the Republic of Iraq for unilaterally terminating two contracts for the purchase and sale of Iraqi oil. The district court concluded it had subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding Iraq's assertion of sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because the lawsuit fell within the "commercial exception" to that immunity. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because the lawsuit was not based upon commercial activity by Iraq in the United States, nor upon an act in connection with such commercial activity having a direct effect in the United States, the district court erred in denying Iraq's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) operated a customer rewards program, called Camel Cash, from 1991 to 1007. Customers could purchase Camel cigarettes, save Camel Cash certificates, enroll in the program, and ultimately redeem their certificates for merchandise featured in RJR catalogs. Plaintiffs alleged that, in reliance on RJR's actions, they purchased Camel cigarettes, enrolled in the program, and saved their certificates for future redemption. They alleged that in 2006 RJR abruptly ceased accepting certificates for redemption, making Plaintiffs' unredeemed certificates worthless. Plaintiffs brought this action for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violation of two California consumer protection laws. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and (2) reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract, holding that Plaintiffs adequately alleged these claims.

Plaintiff brought suit against an airline alleging a common law breach of contract under the implied covenant of god faith and fair dealing. The district court held that Plaintiff's claim was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) and dismissed the claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court after examining the purpose, history, and language of the ADA, along with Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, leading the Court to conclude that the ADA does not preempt a contract claim based on the doctrine of good faith and fair dealing.