Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A construction worker employed by a subcontractor was injured when a scaffold collapsed at a Manhattan worksite. The worker sued the property owner and general contractor in New York Supreme Court, alleging negligence and violations of state labor laws. The owner’s insurer, Liberty Insurance Corporation, sought a declaration in federal court that the subcontractor’s insurer, Hudson Excess Insurance Company, was obligated to defend and indemnify the owner as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s commercial general liability policy. The subcontract between the general contractor and the subcontractor required the latter to provide insurance coverage for the owner and general contractor.In the New York Supreme Court, summary judgment was granted to the injured worker on some claims, while other claims remained pending. The court denied summary judgment to the owner on its contractual indemnification claim against the subcontractor, finding factual questions about the scope of the subcontractor’s work. Later, after the federal district court’s decision, the state court dismissed all third-party claims against the subcontractor, finding the indemnity provision in the subcontract invalid due to lack of a meeting of the minds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s finding, after a bench trial on stipulated facts, that the subcontractor’s actions proximately caused the worker’s injuries and that Hudson owed a duty to indemnify the owner under the policy. The Second Circuit held that the later state court decision did not alter this result. However, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Liberty, holding that Hudson was entitled to a statutory safe harbor under New York Insurance Law, and thus was not required to pay Liberty’s attorney’s fees for the federal action. View "Liberty Insurance Corp. v. Hudson Excess Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A medical device distributor sued a former employee, alleging that he breached a non-compete agreement, his duty of loyalty, and misappropriated trade secrets after joining a competitor. The employee responded with counterclaims and third-party claims. During the litigation, the employee filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which stayed the district court proceedings. In the bankruptcy case, the distributor filed a proof of claim for damages, which the employee did not contest. The bankruptcy court allowed the claim, and the distributor received a partial distribution from the bankruptcy estate. The employee also waived his right to discharge, leaving him potentially liable for the remaining balance.After the bankruptcy case closed, the United States District Court for the District of Vermont lifted the stay. The distributor sought summary judgment for the balance of its allowed claim, arguing that the bankruptcy court’s allowance of its claim should have preclusive effect. Initially, the district court denied this request, finding that using claim preclusion offensively would be unfair. Upon reconsideration, however, the district court reversed itself and granted summary judgment to the distributor for the remaining balance, holding that claim preclusion applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Second Circuit held that, even if claim preclusion could sometimes be used offensively, it could not be applied in this case because it would be unfair to the employee, who had less incentive to contest the claim in bankruptcy. The court vacated the district court’s judgment in favor of the distributor and remanded the case for further proceedings. The main holding is that claim preclusion cannot be used offensively to secure a judgment for the balance of an allowed bankruptcy claim under these circumstances. View "Thermal Surgical, LLC v. Brown" on Justia Law

The appellants, Banoka S.à.r.l. and others, sought third-party discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from Elliott Management Corp. and related entities for use in a contemplated fraud lawsuit in England. The dispute arose from a failed transaction involving the sale of a Paris hotel, where Westmont International Development Inc. was the potential buyer, and the Elliott entities were to provide funding. Banoka alleged that Westmont acted in bad faith during negotiations, leading to the collapse of the deal.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Banoka's petition for discovery from Elliott Management Corp. and its affiliates, but allowed limited discovery from the Elliott Funds. The court found that the forum-selection clause in the agreement between Banoka and Westmont, which designated English courts for dispute resolution, weighed against granting the petition. Additionally, the court determined that Banoka's discovery requests were overly broad and burdensome, particularly since the relevant documents and custodians were primarily located abroad.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the forum-selection clause as a factor against granting the discovery petition. The court also found no error in the district court's conclusion that the discovery requests were unduly burdensome, given their broad scope and the foreign location of the documents and custodians. The appellate court emphasized that the district court's careful and contextual analysis of the relevant factors was appropriate and within its discretion. View "Banoka S.à.r.l. v. Elliott Mgmt. Corp." on Justia Law

A wholesale food supplier, Vista Food Exchange, Inc. ("Vista"), sued Comercial De Alimentos Sanchez S De R L De C.V. ("Sanchez") for breach of contract, alleging that Sanchez failed to pay for over $750,000 worth of meat products. Vista claimed that Sanchez was required to make payments to Vista's headquarters in New York, but Sanchez contended it had paid the invoices in cash to Vista's salesman, Eduardo Andujo Rascón, in Tijuana, Mexico. Sanchez supported its claim with declarations and documents, including an affidavit from Rascón stating he received the cash payments.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Sanchez, dismissing Vista's breach-of-contract claim. The court found that Sanchez provided unrefuted evidence of cash payments to Rascón, fulfilling its contractual obligations. It also ruled that even if paying Rascón in cash breached the contract, Vista could not show that its damages were proximately caused by the breach because Rascón's theft of the money was unforeseeable. The court dismissed Vista's other claims for breach of implied contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment, citing New York law that forecloses such claims when an enforceable contract exists.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding Sanchez's claimed performance, the modification of the contract, and the foreseeability of damages. The appellate court vacated the district court's judgment dismissing Vista's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and remanded the case for trial on those claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Vista's claims for implied contract and promissory estoppel. View "Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Comercial de Alimentos Sanchez" on Justia Law

AMTAX Holdings 227, LLC ("AMTAX") filed a lawsuit against CohnReznick LLP ("CohnReznick") in federal court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The dispute arose from CohnReznick's calculation of a purchase price for a property under a right of first refusal agreement, which AMTAX claimed excluded exit taxes required by Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. AMTAX argued that this exclusion violated the agreement and federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed AMTAX's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court applied the Grable-Gunn test to determine whether the state-law claims presented a substantial federal issue that would warrant federal jurisdiction. The district court concluded that AMTAX's claims did not meet the criteria for federal question jurisdiction, as they did not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue and allowing federal jurisdiction would disrupt the federal-state balance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's application of the Grable-Gunn test, finding that AMTAX's claims were primarily based on contract interpretation rather than federal tax law. The court held that the federal issue was not substantial enough to warrant federal jurisdiction and that exercising jurisdiction would disrupt the balance of state and federal judicial responsibilities. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "AMTAX Holdings 227, LLC v. CohnReznick LLP" on Justia Law

In spring 2020, Czigany Beck, a full-time student at Manhattan College, paid tuition and a comprehensive fee for the semester. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the college transitioned to remote learning in March 2020, and Beck received only 46% of her education in person. Beck filed a class action lawsuit against Manhattan College, claiming breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment for not refunding a portion of her tuition and fees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Beck's claims. The court found that the college's statements were not specific enough to constitute a promise for in-person classes or access to on-campus facilities. The court also ruled that the comprehensive fee was nonrefundable based on the college's terms, and thus Beck's unjust enrichment claim for fees was barred. The court granted summary judgment to Manhattan College on Beck's remaining unjust enrichment claim for tuition, concluding that the college's switch to online instruction was reasonable given the pandemic.Beck appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the district court's judgment should be reversed based on the decision in Rynasko v. New York University. Manhattan College countered with decisions from the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division, which supported affirming the district court's judgment. The Second Circuit identified a split between federal and state courts on New York contract-law principles and certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals: whether New York law requires a specific promise to provide exclusively in-person learning to form an implied contract between a university and its students regarding tuition payments. The Second Circuit reserved decision on Beck's appeal pending the New York Court of Appeals' response. View "Beck v. Manhattan College" on Justia Law

Hamilton Reserve Bank, the beneficial owner of $250,490,000 in Sri Lankan government bonds, sued the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after Sri Lanka defaulted on the bonds. Over a year later, Jesse Guzman, Ultimate Concrete LLC, and Intercoastal Finance Ltd. sought to intervene, claiming Hamilton defrauded them by using their deposited funds to purchase the bonds and then refusing to allow them to withdraw their money.The district court denied the motion to intervene, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the intervenors' claims. The court found that the claims did not derive from a "common nucleus of operative fact" with Hamilton's breach of contract claim against Sri Lanka, as required for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court applied the correct "common nucleus of operative fact" standard for evaluating supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367(a). The court concluded that the intervenors' claims, which involved a banking dispute with Hamilton, did not share substantial factual overlap with Hamilton's breach of contract claim against Sri Lanka. Therefore, the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over the intervenors' claims and denied their motion to intervene. View "Hamilton Reserve Bank v. Sri Lanka" on Justia Law

Little Hearts Marks Family II L.P. ("Little Hearts") was a member of 305 East 61st Street Group LLC, a company formed to purchase and convert a building into a condominium. 61 Prime LLC ("Prime") was the majority member and manager, and Jason D. Carter was the manager and sole member of Prime. In 2021, the company filed for bankruptcy and sold the building to another company created by Carter. The liquidation plan established a creditor trust with exclusive rights to pursue the debtor’s estate's causes of action. Little Hearts sued Prime and Carter for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, seeking damages for lost capital investment and rights under the Operating Agreement.The bankruptcy court dismissed all claims, ruling that they were derivative and belonged to the debtor’s estate, thus could only be asserted by the creditor trustee. The district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims, agreeing that these were derivative and could only be pursued by the creditor trustee. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, determining that these were direct claims belonging to Little Hearts and could proceed. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as duplicative of the contract claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "In re 305 East 61st Street Group LLC" on Justia Law

Givaudan SA, a Swiss multinational manufacturer of flavors and fragrances, entered into a business relationship with Conagen Inc., a Massachusetts-based synthetic biology company. In 2016, the two companies executed a term sheet outlining several potential transactions, including Givaudan's purchase of a 5% equity stake in Conagen for $10 million and an exclusivity agreement for Conagen's intellectual property. Givaudan paid the $10 million and received the shares, but negotiations on the exclusivity agreement failed.Givaudan sued Conagen in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment, seeking the return of its $10 million. After a bench trial, the district court found Conagen not liable on all claims and dismissed the case. Givaudan appealed the dismissal of its breach of contract claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Givaudan failed to prove damages, an essential element of a breach of contract claim under Delaware law. The court found that the $10 million payment for the 5% equity stake was a completed transaction and not contingent on the successful negotiation of the exclusivity agreement. The court also determined that the term sheet was a binding preliminary agreement that established a duty to negotiate in good faith, but Givaudan did not incur any costs or expenses that would qualify as reliance damages. Thus, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Givaudan v. Conagen" on Justia Law

Carrington appealed the district court's judgment requiring them to pay plaintiff, the indirect purchaser and assignee of a limited prejudgment interest in defendants' fund, damages plus prejudgment interest for breach of the limited partnership agreement. Defendants principally contend that the district court erred in its interpretation of the agreement and should have granted summary judgment in their favor on the issue of liability. Defendants argue that, in any event, permitting plaintiff to withdraw from the fund would have precipitated a sale of fund assets at distressed prices, making it impossible for plaintiff to receive more than a minuscule distribution, if any. The court rejected defendants' challenges to the district court's ruling on the issue of liability. However, the court concluded that there were factual issues to be tried as to the calculation of damages. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Umbach v. Carrington Investment Partners (US)" on Justia Law