Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose between two siblings, Wayne Orkin and Lisa Albert, over the operation and ownership of a business called Boost Web SEO, Inc. Orkin managed the day-to-day business and generated all of its revenue, while Albert incorporated the company and was listed as its registered agent and officer. No written agreements clarified their roles, profit sharing, or compensation. In 2014, residual income from a payment processing arrangement was assigned to Boost Web, which both parties treated as company revenue for years. In 2021, after a breakdown in their relationship, Albert cut Orkin’s access to company funds and accused him of fraudulent activities in communications with a third-party vendor. Orkin then redirected company revenues to an account he controlled, prompting legal action.The litigation began in Massachusetts Superior Court, where Orkin (and his father) sued Albert and her son for various state-law claims, and Albert removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Boost Web intervened with a crossclaim against Orkin. After partial summary judgment, the remaining claims—Orkin’s defamation and related claims against Albert, and Boost Web’s conversion claim against Orkin—proceeded to a bench trial. The district court ruled for Albert on the defamation claim, finding her email was not defamatory or was protected as true, and for Boost Web on conversion, awarding it damages for funds Orkin took as personal expenses and for redirected residuals. The court also found Orkin in contempt for interfering with its orders and permanently enjoined him from pursuing related litigation in Florida.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in dismissing Orkin’s defamation claim, finding that Albert’s email could be defamatory per se and remanded for further proceedings on truthfulness. It affirmed the conversion judgment regarding the redirected residuals but vacated the judgment concerning personal expenses, holding that Orkin was entitled to some compensation and remanded to determine the appropriate amount. The court vacated the contempt order and the permanent injunction, finding the previous orders did not unambiguously decide Boost Web’s ownership. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Orkin v. Albert" on Justia Law

A 2018 data breach at Barracuda Networks exposed protected health information of patients of Zoll Services LLC, a subsidiary of Zoll Medical Corporation. Zoll had contracted with Fusion LLC for data security services, and Fusion in turn relied on Barracuda’s technology. The agreements between these companies included certain liability and indemnification provisions, as well as a right for Barracuda to audit Fusion’s customer contracts. After the breach, Zoll settled a class action brought by its customers whose data was compromised.Following these events, Zoll initiated arbitration against Fusion and filed suit against Barracuda in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Fusion intervened and asserted additional claims against Barracuda. The district court dismissed most claims but allowed Zoll’s equitable indemnification claim and Fusion’s breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims to proceed. After arbitration and settlements, Axis Insurance Company, as assignee and subrogee of Zoll and Fusion, was substituted as plaintiff. Barracuda moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims, which the district court granted.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment rulings de novo. The appellate court held that Axis failed to present evidence of a relationship between Zoll and Barracuda that would support derivative or vicarious liability necessary for equitable indemnification under Massachusetts law. The court found that Fusion did not meet a condition precedent in its contract with Barracuda, and Barracuda had not waived or was estopped from asserting that condition. Further, Axis could not show that Barracuda breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as no relevant contractual right existed. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Barracuda on all claims. View "Axis Insurance Company v. Barracuda Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

In this dispute, a charitable foundation affiliated with a musical instruments company loaned a rhinestone-adorned piano, previously owned by Liberace, to a piano retailer under an agreement made in 2011. The arrangement allowed the retailer to display and promote the piano while the foundation avoided storage responsibilities. In 2019, the foundation requested the piano’s return, but the retailer refused, which led the foundation to allege a breach of the bailment agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts initially granted summary judgment to the retailer, holding that the bailment claim was time-barred. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, finding there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the foundation’s ownership of the piano at the time of the agreement. On remand, the case proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict for the foundation on its breach-of-bailment claim, and judgment was entered accordingly.The First Circuit reviewed the retailer’s appeal, where he challenged the judgment on grounds that certain emails should not have been admitted at trial, that the foundation was judicially estopped from pursuing its claim, and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the emails under the hearsay exception for statements of intent, nor in finding the emails relevant. The court also concluded that the District Court properly declined to apply judicial estoppel, as the standard does not require proof of fraudulent intent and that the jury had sufficient evidence to find a bailment agreement existed. Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "Gibson Foundation, Inc. v. Norris" on Justia Law

A borrower in Rhode Island financed a home purchase with a mortgage from a national bank. The mortgage required the borrower to make advance payments for property taxes and insurance into an escrow account managed by the bank. The bank did not pay interest on these escrowed funds, despite a Rhode Island statute mandating that banks pay interest on such accounts. Years later, the borrower filed a class action lawsuit against the bank, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment for failing to pay the required interest under state law.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed the complaint, agreeing with the bank that the National Bank Act preempted the Rhode Island statute. The court reasoned that the state law imposed limits on the bank’s federal powers, specifically the power to establish escrow accounts, and thus significantly interfered with the bank’s incidental powers under federal law. The court did not address class certification or the merits of the unjust enrichment claim, focusing solely on preemption.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., which clarified the standard for preemption under the National Bank Act. The First Circuit held that the district court erred by not applying the nuanced, comparative analysis required by Cantero. The appellate court found that the bank failed to show that the Rhode Island statute significantly interfered with its federal banking powers or conflicted with the federal regulatory scheme. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the borrower’s claims to proceed. View "Conti v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A resident of a memory-care facility in Massachusetts alleged that the facility’s court-appointed receiver, KCP Advisory Group, LLC, conspired with others to unlawfully evict residents, including herself, by falsely claiming that the local fire department had ordered an emergency evacuation. The resident, after being transferred to another facility, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asserting several state-law claims against KCP and other defendants. The complaint alleged that KCP’s actions violated statutory and contractual notice requirements and were carried out in bad faith.KCP moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that as a court-appointed receiver, it was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that while quasi-judicial immunity barred claims based on negligent performance of receivership duties, it did not bar claims alleging that KCP acted without jurisdiction, contrary to law and contract, or in bad faith. The court thus denied KCP’s motion to dismiss several counts, including those for violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. KCP appealed the denial of immunity as to these counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of absolute quasi-judicial immunity de novo. The appellate court held that KCP’s alleged acts—removing residents from the facility—were judicial in nature and within the scope of its authority as receiver. Because KCP did not act in the absence of all jurisdiction, the court concluded that quasi-judicial immunity barred all of the resident’s claims against KCP. The First Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s denial of KCP’s motion to dismiss the specified counts. View "Suny v. KCP Advisory Group, LLC" on Justia Law

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a surge in demand for personal protective equipment (PPE). Bay Promo, LLC, a merchandise supplier, sought to profit by supplying PPE to various entities. Arely Nicolle Moncada Alaniz, a college student, was brought in to assist. Disputes arose over who was responsible for securing lucrative contracts, leading to litigation.The case was first heard in the Massachusetts Federal District Court. After a two-day bench trial, the court found that Bay Promo breached a contract, entitling Moncada to a commission on one PPE order. However, the court denied Moncada's claims for commissions on nine other orders, determining there was no agreement for those commissions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Bay Promo argued that the district court erred in its breach of contract finding and in admitting certain evidence. Moncada contended she was entitled to commissions on all orders and sought equitable relief. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's evidentiary rulings and upheld the factual findings that Bay Promo breached the contract by failing to deliver FDA-approved masks on time. The court also agreed that Moncada did not establish new contracts for additional commissions and was not entitled to equitable relief.The First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Moncada was only entitled to a commission on the initial PPE order and not on subsequent orders. View "Moncada Alaniz v. Bay Promo, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2016, Tucker Cianchette secured a multimillion-dollar judgment in Maine Superior Court against his father, step-mother, and two LLCs after they backed out of a 2015 agreement that would have given him sole control of a Ford dealership. Following this, in 2021, Eric and Peggy Cianchette, along with Cianchette Family, LLC, and Better Way Ford, LLC, filed a lawsuit alleging that Ford Motor Company violated state and federal laws during the failed 2015 negotiations and through false testimony by Ford employees in Tucker's 2016 suit.The 2021 lawsuit was initially filed in Maine Superior Court but was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. The District Court dismissed all claims against Ford, leading the plaintiffs to appeal. The plaintiffs argued that Ford's actions during the 2015 negotiations and the 2016 lawsuit constituted violations of Maine's civil perjury statute, the Dealers Act, the federal Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act, and also amounted to breach of contract and tortious interference with contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Ford made any false representations or that any reliance on such representations was justified. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims under the Dealers Act were barred by res judicata due to a prior ruling by the Maine Motor Vehicle Franchise Board. Additionally, the court concluded that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing did not apply to the breach of contract claims under Michigan law, as the SSA explicitly granted Ford the right to approve changes in ownership. View "Better Way Ford, LLC v. Ford Motor Company" on Justia Law

Power Rental Op Co, LLC ("Power Rental") is a Florida-based company providing water and energy services. The Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority ("WAPA") is a municipal corporation in the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 2012, WAPA entered into a rental agreement with General Electric International, which Power Rental later acquired. By 2019, WAPA owed Power Rental over $14 million, which was reduced to approximately $9.3 million through a promissory note governed by New York law. WAPA defaulted on the note in 2020, leading Power Rental to sue in Florida state court for breach of the note and other claims.The case was removed to the Middle District of Florida, which dissolved pre-judgment writs of garnishment issued by the state court, granted partial summary judgment in favor of Power Rental, and ordered WAPA to complete a fact information sheet. The court found that WAPA waived its sovereign immunity defenses under the terms of the note. WAPA's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit was voluntarily dismissed.Power Rental registered the judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, which issued a writ of execution served on WAPA's account at FirstBank in Puerto Rico. WAPA filed an emergency motion to quash the writ, arguing that the funds were exempt under Virgin Islands law and that the Puerto Rico court lacked jurisdiction. The District of Puerto Rico denied the motion, finding that the separate entity rule did not apply and that it had jurisdiction to issue the writ.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District of Puerto Rico's order. The court held that the separate entity rule was outdated and did not apply, allowing the Puerto Rico court to have jurisdiction over the writ. The court also upheld the lower court's finding that WAPA had waived its statutory immunity defenses. View "Power Rental OP CO, LLC v. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority" on Justia Law

SMS Financial Recovery Services, LLC ("SMS") sued Samaritan Senior Village, Inc. and Samaritan Medical Center, Inc. (collectively, "Samaritan") for breach of contract after Samaritan canceled two contracts during the COVID-19 pandemic. The contracts, signed in December 2019, required Harmony Healthcare International Inc. ("Harmony"), SMS's predecessor, to provide healthcare consulting services to Samaritan for three years. Samaritan canceled the contracts in May 2020, citing financial constraints and the inability to allow Harmony's representatives on-site due to state COVID-19 restrictions.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of Samaritan, finding that Samaritan's performance was excused under the doctrine of impracticability. The court reasoned that New York State Department of Health guidelines made it illegal for Harmony representatives to enter Samaritan's facilities, thus excusing Samaritan from its contractual obligations.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found that a genuine dispute of material fact remained regarding whether Harmony could have performed its contractual obligations remotely, despite the state visitation restrictions. The court noted that the doctrine of frustration of purpose might apply, but it was unclear whether the temporary nature of the restrictions substantially frustrated the overall purpose of the three-year contracts. The court also found that the issue of whether Samaritan's performance was excused only temporarily should be determined by a factfinder.The First Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on SMS's claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violations of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 93A, finding no evidence of bad faith or consumer protection violations by Samaritan. View "SMS Financial Recovery Services, LLC v. Samaritan Senior Village, Inc." on Justia Law

Dahua Technology USA, Inc. ("Dahua") and Feng "Frank" Zhang, a former Dahua executive, are involved in a contract dispute. Zhang claims Dahua breached its obligation to pay him severance of $680,000 per month for sixteen months, while Dahua asserts the severance was intended to be a total of $680,000 paid in sixteen monthly installments. Dahua sued under diversity jurisdiction, seeking reformation of the contract and alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Zhang counterclaimed for breach of contract.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts initially granted summary judgment in Dahua's favor, finding a mistake in the severance provision. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated this judgment, leading to an eleven-day bench trial. The district court concluded that the severance provision contained a mistake but could not be reformed under Massachusetts law, and thus must be enforced as written. Consequently, the district court entered judgment for Zhang in the amount of $10,200,000, plus prejudgment interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found the severance provision ambiguous and vacated the judgment, remanding the case for resolution consistent with extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that Dahua's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim fails. View "Dahua Technology USA, Inc. v. Zhang" on Justia Law