Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A group of plaintiffs, including a medical device company and its founder, developed and sold a cosmetic penile implant. In 2018, a urologist who later became one of the defendants attended a training session hosted by the plaintiffs, where he signed a non-disclosure agreement and was introduced to certain ideas for improving the implant as well as a list of required surgical instruments. Plaintiffs claimed that these ideas and the instrument list were trade secrets. Soon after, the defendants began developing a competing implant, filed patent applications based on allegedly misappropriated information, and advertised using plaintiffs’ trademark.The United States District Court for the Central District of California heard the case, which included claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract under the nondisclosure agreement, trademark counterfeiting, and incorrect inventorship of two patents. The jury found for the plaintiffs on all major claims, including that the asserted trade secrets were protectable and misappropriated, and that there had been a breach of contract. The court awarded substantial damages, including a reasonable royalty, exemplary damages, and a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from using the trade secrets. The court also found for plaintiffs on their counterfeiting claim and invalidated the two patents for failure to name an alleged true inventor.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held there was not legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the asserted information qualified as trade secrets under California law, as the core concepts were either generally known or not subject to reasonable secrecy efforts. The court reversed the denial of judgment as a matter of law on the trade secret and breach-of-contract claims, vacated the damages and injunction based on them, and reversed the invalidation of the patents. However, the court affirmed the verdict and damages for trademark counterfeiting. The result was an affirmance in part, reversal in part, and vacatur in part. View "INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES, INC. v. CORNELL " on Justia Law

Pamela Whalen was injured when she tripped over a utility box in a community owned and maintained by Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC, and Greystone Nevada, LLC. Before the accident, Pamela had signed an amendment to a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) to buy a home from Lennar, which included an arbitration clause. The injury occurred during a tour of the community, not on the property she purchased. Following the accident, Pamela sued Lennar for negligence.After Pamela filed her complaint, Lennar responded with an answer and demanded a jury trial. Both parties engaged in extensive discovery over 17 months, including multiple disclosures, written discovery, and three medical examinations of Pamela at Lennar’s request. Lennar did not assert its right to arbitrate until after this lengthy discovery process. When Pamela declined to stipulate to arbitration, Lennar filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the PSA. The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, denied Lennar’s motion, determining that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in interpreting the scope of the arbitration clause, as the PSA delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. However, the Supreme Court held that Lennar had waived its right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case for 17 months before seeking arbitration. The court found this conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and prejudicial to Pamela, especially given the discovery obtained that might not have been available in arbitration. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration, albeit on the grounds of waiver rather than contract interpretation. View "LENNAR COMM. NEV., LLC VS. WHALEN" on Justia Law

A South Dakota resident hired a South Dakota attorney after his wife's fatal car accident in North Dakota. The attorney brought in a North Dakota lawyer and they both signed agreements with the client, providing for a one-third contingent fee split between the two firms. The agreements allowed the attorneys to withdraw and assert a lien for their full contingent fee if the client refused a settlement offer they deemed reasonable. After the at-fault party’s insurer quickly offered policy limits totaling $500,000, the attorneys and client unsuccessfully pursued other sources of recovery. The attorneys advised settling, but the client declined, leading the attorneys to withdraw and file an attorney’s lien for their fee. Eighteen months later, the client accepted the settlement, prompting the attorneys to seek enforcement of their lien. The client counterclaimed, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and deceit, and sought rescission under North Dakota law.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Codington County, granted summary judgment for the attorneys, enforcing their fee and dismissing the client’s counterclaims. The court found South Dakota law applied, not North Dakota law, and concluded that the fee agreements were enforceable and reasonable. The client appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota held that South Dakota law governs the dispute and affirmed dismissal of the client’s counterclaims. However, it reversed the enforcement of the full contingent fee, finding that the contractual provision allowing withdrawal and a full fee upon the client’s refusal to settle unduly infringed on the client’s rights. The court held that, after withdrawal for good cause, the attorneys are entitled to recover reasonable fees based on quantum meruit, not the contingent fee, and remanded for determination of that amount. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Culhane v. Thovson" on Justia Law

Cuevas Machine Company entered into a subcontract with O’Neal Constructors for fabrication and machining work at a filtration plant owned by Calgon Carbon Corporation in Mississippi. Under the subcontract, Cuevas was to be paid after Calgon paid O’Neal. Despite nonpayment from O’Neal, Cuevas continued its work. In October 2023, Cuevas recorded two construction liens totaling over $1.2 million against Calgon’s property, but the lien documents did not explicitly state the last date labor, services, or materials were supplied—a statutory requirement. Instead, Cuevas attached invoices to the liens, which included dates, but it was unclear whether these dates satisfied the statutory requirement.After Cuevas filed suit to foreclose on the liens in Mississippi state court, Calgon removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and moved to dismiss. The district court granted Calgon’s motion, dismissing Cuevas’s complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court concluded, making an Erie guess, that the liens were unenforceable because they did not clearly specify the required “last date” in the manner demanded by Mississippi law, and found that the attached invoices did not sufficiently cure this defect.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. Finding Mississippi law ambiguous on whether attachments that do not plainly state the “last date” can satisfy the statutory requirement, the Fifth Circuit certified the following question to the Mississippi Supreme Court: whether attaching invoices that do not explicitly state the “last date labor, services or materials were supplied” satisfies the requirement under Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-405(1)(b) that a lien “specify the date the claim was due.” The Fifth Circuit did not decide the merits, instead certifying the question for authoritative resolution. View "Cuevas Machine v. Calgon Carbon" on Justia Law

The case involves a business arrangement among AE OpCo, AAR, and Short Brothers, centered on a procurement contract. AAR’s subsidiary manufactured airline parts for Short Brothers, and AAR guaranteed its subsidiary’s performance. When AE OpCo acquired AAR’s business, it assumed the obligation to perform under the contract, while AAR guaranteed AE OpCo’s performance to Short Brothers. In turn, AE OpCo agreed to indemnify AAR if AE OpCo defaulted. Later, AE OpCo filed for bankruptcy and rejected the procurement contract, prompting both Short Brothers and AAR to file claims in the bankruptcy proceeding.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida considered three claims from AAR: an indemnification claim for potential liability to Short Brothers, a defense-costs claim for legal fees incurred in ongoing litigation with Short Brothers in Northern Ireland, and a bankruptcy-costs claim for attorneys’ fees incurred in the bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court disallowed the indemnification claim as contingent and barred by 11 U.S.C. § 502(e)(1)(B), allowed the defense-costs claim as a fixed, non-contingent claim, and disallowed the bankruptcy-costs claim as a post-petition unsecured claim.On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s disallowance of the indemnification claim, holding that under Delaware law, the settlement between AE OpCo and Short Brothers did not release AE OpCo’s liability, so AAR remained co-liable and the claim was properly disallowed under § 502(e)(1)(B). The appellate court also affirmed the allowance of the defense-costs claim, finding it was not contingent since all events giving rise to liability had occurred. However, the court reversed the disallowance of the bankruptcy-costs claim, holding that neither § 502(b) nor § 506(b) barred allowance of such a claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "AE OPCO III, LLC v. AAR CORP." on Justia Law

A property owner, Gary Binning, purchased land in Wyoming that was subject to a conservation easement held by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). This easement restricted the types of structures that could be built on the property, allowing only one single-family residential structure per parcel. Binning sought to build a guest house in addition to a main house, but TNC denied his request, citing the easement’s terms. This dispute led to litigation, and the Wyoming Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the easement did not permit construction of any guest house or secondary residential structure.Following this decision, Binning met with TNC’s Wyoming state director, Hayley Mortimer, who, according to Binning, suggested during an informal lunch meeting that he could build a structure accommodating overnight guests as long as it was not called a “guest house” and did not include a kitchen. Binning later sought approval for new building plans, but TNC rejected them, and Mortimer’s subsequent written communication did not confirm any such oral promise. Binning then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, asserting a claim of promissory estoppel based on Mortimer’s alleged statements.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of TNC, finding that Binning failed to establish the required elements of promissory estoppel under Wyoming law: a clear and definite promise, reasonable reliance, and that enforcement was necessary to avoid injustice. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed, holding that Mortimer’s alleged statements were not sufficiently clear and definite to constitute a promise, any reliance by Binning was unreasonable under the circumstances, and no injustice would result from refusing enforcement. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Four B Properties v. The Nature Conservancy" on Justia Law

A company that had previously operated a federal warehouse under contract with the government challenged the government’s decision to override an automatic statutory stay that halted performance of a newly awarded contract to a competitor. After the incumbent’s contract expired, the government solicited new bids and awarded the contract to another company. The incumbent protested this decision to the Government Accountability Office, which triggered an automatic stay under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) that prevented the new contractor from beginning performance. A few weeks into the stay period, however, the government determined that urgent and compelling circumstances warranted overriding the stay, and it allowed the new contractor to begin work.The incumbent then filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, contending that the government’s override was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the incumbent, issuing a declaratory judgment that the override was arbitrary and capricious. The court found that in the context of a CICA stay, the protestor was not required to prove the traditional four equitable factors for injunctive relief, since Congress had provided for an automatic stay mechanism.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government argued that the case was moot after the override was withdrawn, but the Federal Circuit found the dispute to be capable of repetition yet evading review. On the merits, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims, holding that a protestor seeking to set aside a CICA stay override need only show that the agency’s action was arbitrary and capricious, and is not required to satisfy the four-factor test for equitable relief. The judgment was affirmed and costs were awarded to the protestor. View "LIFE SCIENCE LOGISTICS, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

The case concerns a legal dispute between two individuals after one party filed a complaint alleging various claims such as breach of contract and misrepresentation. The defendant, representing himself, responded with a cross-complaint. The central procedural issue arose when the trial court granted an anti-SLAPP motion in favor of the plaintiff, dismissed the cross-complaint with prejudice, and awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. The defendant challenged this outcome, asserting that procedural irregularities rendered the orders void, including claims about the improper filing and service of the anti-SLAPP order, as well as arguments about judicial disqualification and standing.After the trial court’s initial rulings, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, previously reviewed the matter in an earlier appeal and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the cross-complaint and the award of attorney’s fees. The court also determined that the plaintiff was entitled to additional attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, with the amount to be set on remand. On remand, the trial court awarded further fees to the plaintiff. The defendant again appealed, raising many of the same arguments previously rejected, as well as new procedural objections.In this second appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, found all of the defendant’s arguments baseless and affirmed the attorney’s fee award. The court held that the defendant’s attempt to relitigate final decisions was frivolous and imposed sanctions against him for pursuing a meritless appeal. The court further ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees for the current appeal and imposed a $10,000 sanction payable to the clerk of the court, remanding the case for the trial court to determine the precise amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. View "Zand v. Sukumar" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two biopharmaceutical companies over the distribution of a biosimilar drug following the expiration of a key patent. After Janssen’s patent for the composition of its biologic drug expired, Samsung sought to introduce its biosimilar product. Janssen and Samsung had previously settled related patent litigation through an agreement that granted Samsung a limited license to enter the market at a set date and restricted Samsung’s ability to sublicense, except to certain commercialization partners. Samsung subsequently entered into agreements with both Sandoz and Quallent, a subsidiary of the Cigna Group, allowing Quallent to distribute the biosimilar under its own label. Janssen argued that the sublicense to Quallent violated the settlement agreement and would cause it irreparable harm by altering market dynamics, reducing its market share and negotiation leverage, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Samsung from supplying Quallent during the litigation.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Janssen’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that while Janssen was likely to succeed on the merits of its breach-of-contract claim, it had not demonstrated irreparable harm because any injury could be measured and compensated by monetary damages. The court credited Samsung’s expert's view that harm to Janssen would be quantifiable, did not find persuasive evidence of brand loyalty or reputational harm, and concluded that Janssen’s asserted loss of negotiation leverage was too speculative.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed. The Court held that loss of market share in a complex market does not categorically constitute irreparable harm in contract cases, and that mere difficulty in calculating damages does not meet the threshold for irreparable harm. The Court concluded that Janssen had not shown the requisite irreparable harm to justify preliminary injunctive relief. View "Johnson & Johnson v. Samsung Bioepis Co Ltd" on Justia Law

A Delaware corporation specializing in antenna measurement systems was majority-owned by a parent company, which controlled the board and imposed a services agreement that disproportionately allocated expenses to the subsidiary. An investment fund, having previously rejected buyout offers, became a vocal minority stockholder. In 2018, after a controversial squeeze-out merger at $3.30 per share—approved without effective minority protections—a third-party expressed interest in buying the parent at a much higher valuation, but later withdrew due to concerns over the parent’s transfer pricing practices. The merger closed at a valuation much lower than that suggested by the later private equity investment.A minority stockholder initially filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty related to the merger. The court denied a motion to dismiss, and the original plaintiff’s counsel negotiated a proposed $825,000 settlement. The investment fund objected, sought to replace the lead plaintiff and counsel, and ultimately succeeded after the original settlement was rejected and the fund posted security to protect other stockholders’ interests. The fund, with new counsel, filed an amended complaint, pursued broader discovery, and advanced new damages theories, including contesting the services agreement and relying on the arm’s-length valuation from the private equity transaction. The litigation efforts included multiple discovery motions, expert reports, and defeating dismissal attempts, culminating in a mediated settlement for $17.85 million—21.64 times the original settlement and reflecting a 235% premium over the deal price.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in the present opinion, held that the investment fund, as lead plaintiff, was entitled to an incentive award of $730,000. The court found that the award was justified based on the fund’s considerable time, effort, and resources expended, the significant benefit obtained for the class, and the absence of problematic incentives or conflicts. View "In re Orbit/FR, Inc. Stockholders Litig." on Justia Law