Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Hexagon US Federal, Inc. ("HexFed") leased a portion of a building from Intergraph Unimproved Properties, LLC in 2015. The lease included two bays with different terms and renewal options. In 2016, the lease was amended to provide a five-year term for both bays. CBS Holdings, LLC later acquired the building and the lease. A dispute arose over whether HexFed had validly renewed the lease, leading HexFed to file a lawsuit against CBS Holdings for breach of the lease agreement.The Madison Circuit Court held a bench trial and ruled in favor of HexFed, finding that CBS Holdings had waived its right to argue that the lease for one of the bays had expired after 12 months. The court also reformed the lease to correct a mutual mistake, establishing that the maximum monthly rent for the bay did not expire after one year. The court declared that HexFed had properly exercised its renewal option and awarded HexFed costs and attorneys' fees.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court held that CBS Holdings had waived its argument about the lease term by accepting rent without objection and by executing a lease amendment without changing the lease term. The court also upheld the reformation of the lease, finding clear evidence of a mutual mistake. Additionally, the court agreed that HexFed had validly renewed the lease by providing timely written notice, despite an error in the rent calculation. Finally, the court affirmed the award of costs and attorneys' fees to HexFed, as it was forced to file the action to enforce the lease. View "CBS Holdings, LLC v. Hexagon US Federal, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2020, First United Pentecostal Church in DeQuincy, Louisiana, sustained significant damage from Hurricanes Laura and Delta. The church was insured by Church Mutual Insurance Company (CM), which covered several buildings on the property. After the hurricanes, First United submitted a claim to CM, but CM delayed the inspection and payment process. CM eventually made two payments totaling $191,832.28, which the church used for repairs. Dissatisfied with the amount and timing of the payments, First United filed a lawsuit against CM, alleging breach of contract and violations of Louisiana insurance statutes.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held a bench trial and found in favor of First United. The court concluded that CM had acted in bad faith by failing to make timely payments and awarded First United $1,101,122.87 in unpaid losses, along with statutory penalties, attorney fees, and costs, bringing the total award to $2,073,838.96. The court later amended the judgment to $2,052,335.09 after correcting some errors. CM's motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law were denied, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions on several points, including the denial of CM's motion to exclude First United's expert, Kermith Sonnier, and the use of Sonnier's estimate to calculate damages. However, the appellate court reversed the district court's imposition of statutory penalties, attorney fees, and costs, finding that CM's actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "First United v. Church Mutual Insurance" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants marketed fraudulent franchise opportunities to foreign nationals seeking to invest in the United States to obtain residency visas. The complaint included claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and state-law claims for fraud, breach of contract, and malpractice. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants misrepresented the nature of the investment opportunities, leading the plaintiffs to believe they were purchasing franchises that would qualify them for E-2 or EB-5 visas. Instead, they received licenses that did not meet visa requirements, resulting in financial losses and visa application issues.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The court found that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege a cognizable enterprise under RICO and failed to meet the heightened pleading standards for fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court also denied the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, citing undue delay and the plaintiffs' failure to provide a proposed amended complaint or additional facts that would cure the deficiencies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to plead a RICO enterprise, as the complaint did not provide sufficient factual detail to support the existence of an association-in-fact enterprise. The court also upheld the dismissal of the fraud and fraudulent inducement claims, finding that the plaintiffs did not meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b). Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint and the dismissal of claims against certain defendants for failure to effect timely service of process. View "Crosswell v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In 2005, Full Circle Villagebrook GP, LLC formed a partnership with Protech 2004-D, LLC and AMTAX Holdings 436, LLC to develop and operate an affordable housing project in Illinois. Full Circle, as the General Partner, held a minor ownership stake but had an option to buy out the Limited Partners after 15 years, based on the property's fair market value. The partnership agreement specified that the appraiser for this valuation must be selected from the approved lists of LaSalle Bank or Deutsche Bank Berkshire Mortgage (DBBM). When Full Circle attempted to exercise this option in 2020, it selected an appraiser from the approved lists of the successor banks to LaSalle and DBBM, as the original banks no longer existed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the Limited Partners and Alden Torch Financial, LLC. The court held that Full Circle did not comply with the partnership agreement's terms, as it did not select an appraiser from the lists of the named banks, nor did it seek the Investor Limited Partner's approval for an alternative appraiser. Consequently, the court denied Full Circle's claims for breach of contract and tortious interference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the contract's language was unambiguous and required strict compliance with the specified method for selecting an appraiser. Since Full Circle did not adhere to these terms, it failed to validly exercise its option, and no binding contract was formed. Therefore, the Limited Partners were not in breach, and Full Circle's claims were properly dismissed. View "Full Circle Villagebrook GP, LLC v. Protech 2004-D, LLC" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan company, HSR, engaged another Guatemalan company, AICSA, to design and construct a hydroelectric power plant. The project faced opposition from the local indigenous community, leading to work suspension and eventual contract termination by HSR. HSR initiated arbitration seeking payments and damages from AICSA, which counterclaimed for its own damages and sought to include its subcontractor, Novacom, in the arbitration.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially denied AICSA's motion to vacate the arbitration award, citing Eleventh Circuit precedent. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc decision, later reversed this, holding that Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides grounds for vacatur in cases governed by the New York Convention. The case was remanded to the District Court, which ultimately confirmed the arbitration award, leading to AICSA's appeal.The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the arbitration tribunal did not exceed its authority in three key areas: requiring AICSA to maintain or renew advance payment bonds, denying AICSA's claim that HSR breached anti-corruption provisions, and refusing to join Novacom to the arbitration. The court emphasized that the tribunal's decisions were based on interpretations of the contract, even if those interpretations were arguably erroneous. The court's review was limited to whether the tribunal interpreted the contract, not whether it did so correctly. View "Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A. v. Corporacion AIC, SA" on Justia Law

Alvin Johnson pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine under a plea agreement. The agreement included a stipulation regarding the drug quantity and its base offense level but allowed the Government to make a sentencing recommendation. Johnson was initially sentenced to 128 months in prison, classified as a career offender based on prior convictions. He later successfully challenged one of these convictions, leading to a recalculated Guidelines range of 57-71 months.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina initially sentenced Johnson to 128 months. Upon remand, after Johnson's successful challenge to his career offender status, the Probation Office recalculated his Guidelines range to 57-71 months. The Government then moved for an upward departure or variance, arguing that Johnson's criminal history warranted a higher sentence. The district court agreed and sentenced Johnson to 120 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Johnson argued that the Government breached the plea agreement by seeking a sentence above the recalculated Guidelines range. The court found that the plea agreement did not restrict the Government from recommending a higher sentence and that the Government had reserved the right to make a sentencing recommendation. The court held that the Government did not breach the plea agreement and affirmed the 120-month sentence. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A salesperson from Elite Home Remodeling, Inc. visited the home of Harold and Lucy West, both in their 90s and suffering from dementia, to discuss solar panel installation and home renovation. The salesperson, Ilai Mitmiger, allegedly obtained Harold's electronic signature on a loan agreement with Solar Mosaic LLC (Mosaic) through Deon, the Wests' daughter, who provided her email for the documents. The loan agreement was signed electronically in Harold's name within seconds, despite Harold's apparent lack of understanding and technical ability.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Mosaic's petition to compel arbitration, finding that Mosaic failed to prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The court determined that Mosaic did not establish that Harold signed the loan documents or that Deon had the authority to bind Harold to the agreement.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court's order. The appellate court held that the evidence presented, including Harold's dementia and lack of technical skills, created a factual dispute about the authenticity of Harold's electronic signatures. The court also found that Mosaic did not prove Deon had the authority to act as Harold's agent or that Harold ratified the agreement during a recorded phone call with Mosaic. The court concluded that the recorded call did not demonstrate Harold's awareness or understanding of the loan agreement, thus failing to establish ratification. The order denying the petition to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "West v. Solar Mosaic, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an entrepreneur, helped form a medical business with a surgeon. The business, structured as a limited liability company (LLC), operated surgery centers and distributed profits to its members, including the plaintiff. Over time, the plaintiff became inactive but continued to receive substantial profits. Tensions arose when the plaintiff refused buyout offers from other members. The plaintiff then directed his attorney to send a threatening letter to various stakeholders, alleging illegal activities within the company. This letter caused significant concern among the recipients, leading the company to warn the plaintiff that he would be ejected without compensation if he did not retract his statements within 30 days. The plaintiff refused, and the company subsequently ousted him, valuing his shares at zero.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County rejected all of the plaintiff's claims. The court found that the plaintiff's letter constituted a "terminating event" under the company's operating agreement, justifying his ejection without compensation. The court also ruled that the business judgment rule protected the company's decision to remove the plaintiff, as it was made in the best interests of the company. The plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing were all dismissed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appellate court held that the business judgment rule applied, as the company's decision to eject the plaintiff was rational and made in good faith. The court also found that the plaintiff's loss of his shares was not an illegal forfeiture, as it was reasonably related to the harm his actions could have caused the company. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding procedural irregularities and the valuation of his shares, concluding that the company's actions were justified and lawful. View "Tuli v. Specialty Surgical Center of Thousand Oaks, LLC" on Justia Law

Following an accident, Jeremy Marchek sued his auto insurer, United Services Automobile Association (USAA), claiming that the company breached the terms of the policy it issued to him. Marchek argued that USAA wrongfully failed to compensate him for sales taxes and mandatory fees necessary to purchase a replacement vehicle after USAA declared his vehicle to be beyond repair. USAA paid Marchek the pre-accident value of his vehicle minus a deductible but did not include taxes and fees in the payment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed Marchek’s complaint, ruling that USAA was not contractually obligated to compensate him for taxes and fees. The district court found that the insurance policy did not require USAA to cover these additional costs when calculating the actual cash value (ACV) of the vehicle.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plain language of the insurance policy plausibly requires USAA to compensate Marchek for the sales taxes and mandatory fees necessary to purchase a replacement vehicle. The court found that the policy’s definition of ACV, which is “the amount that it would cost, at the time of loss, to buy a comparable vehicle,” does not unambiguously exclude taxes and fees. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether USAA breached the contract by not including these costs in its payment to Marchek. View "Marchek v. United Services Automobile Association" on Justia Law

The plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for a new vehicle, which later exhibited multiple defects. Despite several repair attempts, the issues persisted. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, seeking various forms of relief including replacement or restitution, damages, and attorney fees.The case proceeded to trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where the jury found the defendant liable and awarded the plaintiff damages. However, the jury did not find the defendant’s violation to be willful, thus no civil penalties were awarded. Subsequently, both parties filed motions regarding costs and attorney fees. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, limiting the plaintiff to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and awarding the defendant post-offer costs based on a prior settlement offer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court addressed two main issues: whether a section 998 offer consisting of two simultaneous offers is valid, and whether an offer that promises to pay for statutory categories of damages with disputes resolved by a third party is sufficiently certain. The court concluded that simultaneous offers are generally invalid under section 998 due to the uncertainty they create for the trial court in determining whether the judgment is more favorable than the offer. However, since only one of the defendant’s two offers was invalid, the remaining valid offer was operative. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff was limited to pre-offer costs and attorney fees, and the defendant was entitled to post-offer costs. View "Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC" on Justia Law