Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The court originally remanded this case to the district court for additional fact-finding to establish complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants with instructions to reenter summary judgment if federal subject-matter jurisdiction could be properly established. After dismissing a nondiverse plaintiff it found was not a real party in interest to this case, the district court reentered its earlier grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer on all claims. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of PMI Delaware and its grant of summary judgment to Lexington. The court concluded that the district court's dismissal of PMI Delaware pursuant to FRCP 21 as a "nominal or formal party" was proper because the district court found that though PMI Delaware was a named insured on the Insurance Policy, PMI Delaware would not be entitled to any portion of a successful judgment against Lexington because PMI Florida, not PMI Delaware, was the party against whom Blue Cross had filed suit and PMI Florida, not PMI Delaware, was the only party that made a claim for coverage to Lexington. Further, PMI Delaware was not even a party to the underlying Blue Cross contract, which provided healthcare coverage only to PMI Florida’s leased employees. Further, the court affirmed the district court's holding that Lexington owed no coverage to PMI Florida. Here, the court saw no contractual ambiguity; the Insurance Policy issued by Lexington explicitly excludes the coverage sought by PMI Florida. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Lexington on PMI Florida’s claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Finally, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Lexington on its claim of negligent misrepresentation where no jury could reasonably find that Yoohoo justifiably relied on the statement at issue as an indication that there would be coverage under the policy. View "Payroll Mgmt., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Institute filed the underlying complaint, alleging claims for unjust enrichment, right of publicity, and misappropriation under Michigan common law for Target’s sales of all items using the name and likeness of Rosa Parks. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that Target's use of Rosa Parks’s name and likeness in the books, movie, and plaque is necessary to chronicling and discussing the history of the Civil Rights Movement. These matters are quintessentially embraced and protected by Michigan’s qualified privilege. Michigan law does not make discussion of these topics of public concern contingent on paying a fee. Therefore, all six books, the movie, and the plaque are protected under Michigan’s qualified privilege protecting matters of public interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rosa and Raymond Parks Inst. for Self Dev. v. Target Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants Fabec and Lalo Scrolling Media for breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and related claims. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's grant of default judgment against them. The court concluded that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiffs satisfied the amount in controversy requirement; the district court acted well within its discretion in concluding that Fabec’s noncompliance with the district court’s pretrial instructions justified the entry of a default judgment; but because Fabec was denied the opportunity to cross-examine plaintiffs' counsel, the court reversed that portion of the default judgment awarding plaintiffs $43,500 in attorney’s fees and remanded the case to the district court to hold a hearing on the amount and reasonableness of the fees. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Giovanno v. Fabec" on Justia Law