Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Brian Fitzgerald appealed for a second time the district court's award to him of $33,333 in quantum meruit - for his services in a medical malpractice case appellee had settled on behalf of Wende Nostro, a client Fitzgerald had referred to appellee - based on the unjust enrichment he conferred on appellee. The court held that the initial measure of Fitzgerald's quantum meruit award was one-third of appellee's $500,000 recovery from the Nostro settlement, or $166,666. The court further held that the $166,666 amount should be reduced to the extent Fitzgerald decreased the overall value to appellee of the Nostro case. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded with instructions that the district court enter a final quantum meruit award of $100,000 for Fitzgerald.

This case involved a breach of contract claim for the sale and service of an air combat maneuvering range for use by Iran's military. At issue was whether confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of the Ministry of Defense and Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran was "contrary to the public policy" of the United States under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, known as the "New York Convention," 9 U.S.C. 201-208. The court held that confirmation of the award did not violate any public policy. The court also held that the district court's judgment was a "money judgment" subject to postjudgment interest, and that a district court had discretion to award prejudgment interest and attorney's fees in an action to confirm an arbitration award under the Convention. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in part, vacated it in part, and remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the Ministry's motions for prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

This litigation arose out of a franchise agreement between West Coast Hotels and Mahmoud Karimi. The successor in interest to West Coast Hotels was Red Lion, both were incorporated in Washington state. Karimi and his hotel management company (collectively, Karimi) operated a Red Lion franchise in Modesto, California. Red Lion subsequently terminated the franchise and sued Karimi for breach of contract and Karimi counterclaimed, asserting state-law claims, including a claim based on the "franchise bill of rights" of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act (FIPA), Wash. Rev. Code 19.100.180, 19.86.020. At issue on appeal was whether a non-Washington franchisee could assert a claim against a Washington franchisor under FIPA's bill of rights. The court concluded that an out-of-state franchisee could assert such a claim. Because FIPA's bill of rights applied to the franchise agreement at issue, the court remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that Red Lion was not equitably estopped from terminating the franchise agreement. The court remanded for consideration by the district court of the entry of judgment against Karimi's wife.

This appeal concerned the maintenance of a suit for rescission under section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., by plaintiffs. The district court granted summary judgments to defendants on all claims and awarded defendants attorneys' fees. The court held that a plaintiff suing under section 10(b) seeking rescission must demonstrate economic loss and that the misrepresentation of fraudulent conduct caused the loss. In this case, the court found that the record revealed the rescission was not feasible. Yet employing a rescissionary measure of damages, plaintiffs could be able to convince the finder of fact that plaintiffs were entitled to relief. On that basis, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' federal and state securities claims and remanded for consideration under rescissionary measure of damages. With respect to the statute of limitations issue, the court remanded for consideration in light of Merck & Co. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on plaintiffs' state law claims of common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, mutual mistake, failure of a condition precedent, and unjust enrichment. The court vacated the district court's attorneys' fee award and dismissed the appeal of the award as moot.

Plaintiffs, individual homeowners, sued defendants, some of the nation's largest housing developers, seeking damages, attorneys fees and costs, and the option to rescind their home purchases due to defendants' fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of California law. At issue was whether plaintiffs, who purchased homes in new developments, had standing to sue defendants for injuries allegedly caused by defendants' practice of marketing neighboring homes to individuals who presented a high risk of foreclosure and abandonment of their homes, financing those high-risk buyers, concealing that information, and misrepresenting the character of the neighborhoods. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' overpayment and rescission claims for lack of Article III standing. The court also held that plaintiffs' decreased economic value and desirability were cognizable injuries. While the court agreed with the district court that, on the current record, plaintiffs have not established a sufficient causal connection between any decreased value and desirability and defendants' actions, plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaint and attach expert testimony on causation. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff brought suit against the Dealership and Porsche when the pre-owned car that she purchased from the Dealership developed serious mechanical problems during the warranty period and the Dealership refused to honor her warranty claims. Plaintiff alleged breach of implied and express warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq., and breach of contract and unconscionability under California law. The district court granted the Dealership's petition to compel arbitration pursuant to the mandatory arbitration provision in the sales contract that plaintiff signed when she bought the car and stayed the action against Porsche. Plaintiff's principal argument on appeal was that the MMWA barred the provision mandating pre-dispute binding arbitration of her warranty claims against the Dealership. Although the text of the MMWA did not specifically address the validity of pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration, Congress expressly delegated rulemaking authority under the statue to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC construed the MMWA as barring pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration provisions covering written warranty agreements and issued a rule prohibiting judicial enforcement of such provisions with respect to consumer claims brought under the MMWA. Because it was required to defer to the reasonable construction of a statute by the agency that Congress had authorized to interpret it, the court held that the MMWA precluded enforcement of pre-dispute agreements such as Porsche's that required mandatory binding arbitration of consumer warranty claims. The court declined to address plaintiff's remaining claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff brought suit against Toyota when the new car that she leased developed mechanical problems during the warranty period and Toyota failed to repair them to her satisfaction. In addition to several California state law claims, she alleged breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq. The district court granted Toyota's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that plaintiff did not, before filing suit in civil court, pursue her claims through the California Dispute Settlement Program (CDSP) that Toyota maintained and specified in its warranty. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that her failure to initially resort to the CDSP provided Toyota an affirmative defense to her warranty claims under the MMWA, but did not defeat subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the prerequisite in section 2310(a) of the MMWA that a "consumer may not commence a civil action... unless he initially resorts to [an informal dispute settlement procedure]" was merely a codification of the MMWA's exhaustion requirement and did not operate as a jurisdictional bar. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded so that the district court could consider how to proceed with the instant action, including the failure-to-exhaust issues.

Chevron, the franchisor, brought suit for declaratory judgment against one of its franchised dealers, M&M Petroleum Services, Inc. M&M responded with a counterclaim of its own, a counterclaim that was not only found to be frivolous, but the product of perjury and other misconduct. The court held that had M&M merely defended Chevron's suit, it could not have been held liable for attorneys' fees. The court held, however, that in affirmatively bringing a counterclaim that was reasonably found to be frivilous, M&M opened itself up to liability for attorneys' fees under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2805(d)(3). Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that Chevron was eligible to recover attorneys' fees, nor did the district court abuse its discretion in determining that M&M's counterclaim was frivolous and awarding attorneys' fees to Chevron under section 2805(d)(3).

This dispute emerged from state and federal litigation over liability for damages and defense costs in certain environmental tort suits. At issue was an action for damages that appellants brought in federal court and a declaratory judgment action that appellee brought in state court, which appellants later removed to federal court. The district court dismissed the former and remanded the latter in light of a related third action that had been pending for several years in state court. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding that the parties' claims should be resolved in a more comprehensive action (Vulcan Action). The court also held that the district court had discretion under Wilton v. Seven Falls Co. and Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am. to remand the removed action. The court further held that the district court's concerns about piecemeal litigation and interfering with the progress made in the Vulcan Action supported dismissal under Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

This case originated with a misunderstanding regarding a $645 charge on the credit card bill of appellant. Chase Bank misidentified the basis for the charge but failed to respond to appellant's requests for information about it. After unsuccessfully attempting to get response from Chase Bank, appellant and his wife filed this action, alleging, inter alia, claims under the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), 15 U.S.C. 1666-1666j and Oregon's Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act (UDCPA), Or. Rev. Stat. 646.639-643. The court held that the trial court erred in holding that appellant failed to state a claim under the UDCPA. The court declined to certify appellant's proposed question to the Oregon Supreme Court regarding this claim because existing state precedent guided the court's decision. As to the FCBA claims, the trial court erred in requiring evidence of detrimental reliance to support actual damages and in limiting statutory damages for Chase Bank's multiple violations of the FCBA to a single recovery. Finally, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying any award of attorneys' fees related to appellant's successful claim under the FCBA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.