Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2013, CNE Direct, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation that buys and resells bulk technological components, reached an agreement with the now-defunct Asset Recovery Associates Worldwide, Ltd. to purchase phone parts manufactured by BlackBerry Corporation. When Asset failed to make the parts available at the agreed-upon price, CNE sued Asset and also sought to hold BlackBerry itself liable, asserting that Asset was cloaked with both actual and apparent authority to bind BlackBerry in contract. The district court entered default judgment against Asset and summary judgment in favor of BlackBerry. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that no fact finder could rationally conclude that BlackBerry gave CNE reason to think that Asset was acting as BlackBerry’s agent in negotiating the price of the 2013 deal. View "CNE Direct, Inc. v. Blackberry Corp." on Justia Law

Trafon Group, Inc., a Puerto Rico-based wholesale food distributor, filed suit in the District of Puerto Rico alleging that Butterball LLC breached an exclusive distribution agreement in violation of Puerto Rico’s Law 75 of June 24, 1964. Trafon moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining Butterball from further impairing the alleged exclusive distribution agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Trafon’s claim was barred under Law 75’s three-year statute of limitations. The district court then dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Trafon’s action was time-barred under Law 75. View "Trafon Group, Inc. v. Butterball LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants were business entities that organize physically challenging obstacle course events in locations throughout the United States. The four named Plaintiffs registered to participate in one of those events. Plaintiffs filed suit in Massachusetts superior court alleging that they were unable to participate in the event because of a second change of location and that Defendants refused to refund Plaintiffs’ registration fees. Plaintiffs sought relief on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that removal was permitted under the Class Action Fairness Act because the matter in controversy exceeded $5 million. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court arguing that Defendant failed to show that over $5 million was in controversy. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court. The district court then dismissed the case and compelled mediation and arbitration of the dispute. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in concluding that Defendants met their burden of showing that over $5 million was in controversy in this matter. Remanded with instructions to remand the case to state court for lack of jurisdiction. View "Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a merger agreement, Sellers agreed to indemnity Buyer for the tax liabilities of the company being sold. The tax bills for indemnification purposes, however, were to be calculated as if certain deductions were not going be taken when both parties knew they would be. These deductions reduced the company’s tax liability to zero. After the merger, the company’s tax prepayments and credits were refunded in their entirety, thus benefitting Buyer. Because the calculation of the indemnity obligation was based on a counterfactual measure of tax liability, that calculation resulted in Sellers’ owing Buyer a substantial amount of liability. Buyer filed this complaint asserting claims for declaratory relief and breach of contract. At issue in this case was whether the prepayments and credits affected the tax indemnification obligation of Sellers. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of Sellers, concluding that the indemnification provision unambiguously required that the indemnity obligation be offset by the amount of the refunded prepayments and credits. The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the indemnification provision was ambiguous as to how the tax refunds affect the indemnification obligation of Sellers. Remanded. View "Mercury Sys., Inc. v. S’holder Representative Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Lopez & Medina Corp. (L&M) filed a lawsuit against several insurers for Patriot Air, LLC, alleging that the insurers were liable for L&M’s breach of contract claims against Patriot Air. The district court dismissed L&M’s complaint, concluding that the relevant insurance policy did not provide coverage for contract claims. The First Circuit affirmed. L&M and its owner subsequently filed the complaint in this action seeking recovery in tort for Patriot Air’s negligence arising out of the same set of facts that underlay the previous suit’s breach of contract claims. The district court dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly invoked res judicata in dismissing the action. View "Medina-Padilla v. US Aviation Underwriters, Inc." on Justia Law

Steven Fustolo’s affiliate companies issued four promissory notes to Patton Drive, LLC. Fustolo personally guaranteed two of the notes. When the principal debtors defaulted on all four notes, Patton drive sued Fustolo. The Massachusetts state court found Fustolo liable for breach of contract and entered judgment against Fustolo. Fustolo appealed, challenging the interest due. Meanwhile, Patton Drive joined with two of Fustolo’s other creditors to file a petition seeking to place Fustolo into involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Fustolo, in turn, asserted that Patton Drive was not qualified it to serve as a petitioning creditor because his pending state court appeal subjected Patton Drive’s judgment to “bona fide dispute as to liability or amount.” The bankruptcy court allowed Patton Drive to join in initiating involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against Fustolo. The district court affirmed, finding that Fustolo’s state court appeal could not raise a bona fide dispute as to Patton Drive’s claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that because the amount of Fustolo’s liability on the guaranteed notes was not subject to bona fide dispute, and because Patton Drive’s claim on the guaranteed notes could be considered separately from Patton Drive’s claim on the judgment within which its underlying contract claims were submerged, Patton Drive qualified as a petitioning creditor. View "Fustolo v. 50 Thomas Patton Dr., LLC" on Justia Law

This three-way dispute between Link Development, LLC (Link), BD Lending Trust (BD), and RFF Family Partnership LP (RFF) stemmed from an unauthorized conveyance of a mortgage to BD on commercial property in Massachusetts, then owned by Link and now owned by RFF. Previous litigation resulted in settlement agreements between Link and BD and between RFF and BD. In this appeal, RFF challenged (1) the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Link and against RFF on RFF’s claims regarding the validity of the BD mortgage on the grounds that RFF was judicially estopped from challenging the validity of the mortgage, and (2) the court’s decision to exclude attorneys’ fees from damages that BD owed RFF for breach of the settlement agreement between RFF and BD, and the court’s refusal to enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of RFF on contract damages. The First Circuit (1) vacated the entry of summary judgment on RFF’s claims pertaining to the validity of the BD mortgage, holding that the district court abused its discretion in applying judicial estoppel; and (2) affirmed the district court’s decisions related to contract damages and the court’s award of attorneys’ fees under Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws. View "RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Link Dev., LLC" on Justia Law

Redondo Construction Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Through the proceedings, Redondo filed three complaints against the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority for money owed under construction contracts, alleging that it was entitled to damages and prejudgment interest. The bankruptcy court ruled in Redondo’s favor and found that Redondo was entitled to prejudgment interest. The First Circuit vacated the award of prejudgment interest and remanded. On remand, the bankruptcy court awarded Redondo prejudgment interest on its contract claims under Article 1061 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, accruing through the payment of principal. The Authority moved to amend the judgment. The bankruptcy court denied the Authority’s motion, and the district court affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the judgment, holding (1) Redondo did not forfeit its claim to prejudgment interest under Article 1061; but (2) 28 U.S.C. 1961 exclusively controls awards of postjudgment interest in federal court, and therefore, the bankruptcy court should not have extended the prejudgment interest accrual period past the entry of judgment. Remanded for a calculation of section 1961 interest and a recalculation of Article 1061 interest. View "P.R. Highway & Transp. v. Redondo Constr. Corp." on Justia Law

Copia Communications, LLC, a Massachusetts company, brought this action in federal district court in Massachusetts against Seawind Key Investments, Limited, a Jamaican resort operator, and Seawind’s alleged alter-ego, AMResorts, LP, a Pennsylvania limited partnership, alleging breach of contract. The subject contract was proposed and executed in Jamaica, performance on the contract occurred almost exclusively in Jamaica, and the contract was governed by the laws of Jamaica. Both defendants, neither of which operated any business or had any corporate presence in Massachusetts, moved to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants was barred by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. View "Copia Commc’ns, LLC v. AMResorts, LP" on Justia Law

LimoLiner Inc. contracted with Dattco, Inc. to repair a luxury motor coach that LimoLiner owned. LimoLiner later filed this action in Massachusetts state court alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence, replevin, and violation of 940 C.M.R. 5.05, a Massachusetts regulation. Dattco removed the case to federal district court. The magistrate judge found that Dattco breached the repair contract by failing to do all of the work that LimoLiner had requested. The judge also ruled for Dattco on all of LimoLiner’s other claims, awarding LimoLiner a total of $25,123 in damages. LimoLiner appealed, arguing, among other things, that the magistrate judge erred in ruling that Dattco may not be held liable under 940 C.M.R. 5.05 for certain actions and omissions that occurred on the job. The First Circuit certified a question concerning 940 C.M.R.’s intended scope to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and thus did not decide the merits of LimoLiner’s regulatory claims. The Court otherwise affirmed, holding that the magistrate judge did not err in concluding that Dattco did not breach the parties’ oral contract to make the repairs in a timely manner and owed damages only for the loss of use of the vehicle for one limited period of time. View "Limoliner, Inc. v. Dattco, Inc." on Justia Law