Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

At issue before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case was whether an adverse claim to a stake may be so lacking in substance that a neutral stakeholder cannot interplead in good faith. Interpleader is proper when a stakeholder has at least a good faith belief that there are conflicting colorable claims. Appellee in this case was an insurance company that sought to interplead disputed insurance proceeds. Seeking to interplead the insurance funds, Appellee filed a counterclaim against Appellant and a third party complaint against Appellant's former husband. The district court found that interpleader was appropriate. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Appellee interpleaded in good faith, and consequently, the district court's judgment in interpleader was proper.

After Lender failed to respond to Plaintiff's correspondence regarding ownership of his loan, Lender foreclosed on Borrower's property. Plaintiff filed suit against all the actors involved (Defendants), alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) , seeking injunctive relief against foreclosure, and claiming breach of contract, failure to act in good faith, and wrongful foreclosure under Nevada law. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's Nevada law claims with prejudice. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint claiming a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court dismissed the amended complaint without leave to amend. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's TILA and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, as Lender was not legally required to respond to Plaintiff's correspondence in its capacity as loan servicer; and (2) vacated the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's state law claims regarding the foreclosure of Plaintiff's property and remanded those remaining claims to the district court.

Plaintiffs commenced an arbitration proceeding against Defendant pursuant to terms of a written agreement between the parties. Eber subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, and the arbitration was automatically stayed. Plaintiffs then filed a complaint for determination that debts are nondischargeable and for damages. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from automatic stay in the bankruptcy court proceeding and a motion to compel arbitration in the adversary proceeding. Both motions were denied. The bankruptcy court found that Plaintiffs' claims were discharged. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration because granting the motion would have conflicted with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code; and (2) the Court did not need address the denial of Plaintiffs' motion for relief from the automatic stay because the stay had already dissolved before the bankruptcy judge ruled on the motion.

David Day, an ERISA plan beneficiary, elected to roll over his pension benefits into an individual retirement account (IRA) upon separation from his employer, AT&T. Exercising its discretion, the plan's claims administrator construed Day's lump sum rollover as the equivalent of his having "received" his pension benefits and, according to the terms of AT&T's Disability Income Benefit Plan, reduced Day's long-term disability (LTD) benefits by the amount of the rollover. The district court entered judgment in favor of the plan. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the administrator reasonably interpreted the plan; (2) AT&T did not breach its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose the possibility that Petitioner's LTD benefits would be reduced by his receipt of pension benefits; and (3) the administrator's actions did not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Defendant appealed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of CGI in its action seeking "appropriate equitable relief" under section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. CGI appealed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendant's counsel and codefendant, dismissing the codefendant from the action. CGI also appealed the district court's grant of proportional fees and costs to the codefendant, deducted from CGI's recovery from defendant. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the codefendant, dismissing it from the action. However, because the court saw no indication that in fashioning "appropriate equitable relief" for CGI, the district court did more than interpret the plain terms of the reimbursement provision, and no indication that the district court considered traditional equitable principles in assigning responsibility to CGI for attorneys' fees and costs, the court vacated the judgment in favor of CGI, vacated the judgment that the codefendant deducted fees and costs from CGI's entitlement, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Plaintiff, insured under two-long term disability plans, sued the Plans when Unum decided to deduct his Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefit as deductible income under each plan, resulting in what he termed a "double offset." Because the court held that Unum's decision was not an abuse of discretion, that the plain language of the Plans permitted the deduction of the SSDI benefit from each plan, and that plaintiff was not entitled to equitable estoppel, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plans.

This case arose when plaintiff alleged that defendant owed it mineral royalty payments pursuant to an area-of-interest provision contained in a 1979 agreement. The court certified two questions to the Nevada Supreme Court: (1) Under Nevada law, does the Rule Against Perpetuities apply to an area-of-interest provision in a commercial agreement? and (2) If the Rule Against Perpetuities did apply, is reformation available under Nevada Revised Statute 111.1039(2)? All further proceedings in the case were stayed pending receipt of the answer from the Nevada Supreme Court.

Plaintiff brought suit against Deerbrook for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff was injured in an accident caused by Deerbrook's insured and after plaintiff received a judgment against the insured, the insured assigned his bad faith claim to plaintiff. Plaintiff argued that Deerbrook breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to its insured when Deerbrook did not attempt to reach a settlement of plaintiff's claims after the insured's liability in excess of the policy limit became reasonably clear. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's rejection of his request to instruct the jury that it could consider Deerbrook's failure to effectuate a settlement in determining whether Deerbrook breached the implied covenant. The court concluded that plaintiff's proposed jury instruction was consistent with the law but that there was no evidentiary basis for the instruction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiffs, employees at a defense plant in Arizona, collectively bargained for the right to receive employer-provided healthcare coverage after they retired. At issue was whether those employees, now retirees, were contractually entitled to receive premium-free healthcare coverage until age 65, or whether the contracts on which the retirees relied as providing that entitlement allowed their prior employer to start charging them for their insurance. The court held that Raytheon expressly agreed to provide 100% company-paid healthcare coverage for eligible retirees; that Raytheon's obligation survived the expectation of the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs); and that Raytheon's agreed-upon obligation could not be unilaterally abrogated by Raytheon, regardless of the rights Raytheon reserved for itself in Plan documents, because the CBAs did not incorporate the Plans' reservation-of-rights provisions with respect to employer contribution issues, as opposed to issues relating to the provision of monetary or in kind benefits for particular medical services. The court further held that the district court did not err in rejecting plaintiffs' claim for punitive and extra-contractual damages.

When a dispute arose regarding certain services Janice Karman, plaintiff, provided in connection with the movie, "Alvin and the Chipmunks, The Squeakquel," plaintiffs (Karman and Bagdasarian Productions) filed this action. Fox moved to stay the case and to refer the dispute to a referee as the parties' Purchase/Producer Agreement-Literary Material provided. The district court granted the motion and plaintiffs brought this interlocutory appeal to contest the reference. The court concluded that the district court's order was not final, plaintiffs have not been put "out of court" by the order, and the collateral order doctrine was inapplicable because the decision to refer could be reviewed and, if incorrect, later remedied by the court. As such, the appeal was premature and the court lacked jurisdiction over it under 28 U.S.C. 1291.