Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The case involves eight multiemployer benefit plans (the "Funds") seeking to recover delinquent contributions from Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. for health, pension, and other benefits for sheet metal workers. The Funds allege that Stromberg underpaid contributions owed under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Union (SMART Union) by hiring temporary workers through staffing agencies without making the required contributions.Initially filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court denied Stromberg’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Funds’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and awarded the Funds over $823,000 in delinquent contributions and more than $430,000 in liquidated damages and interest. Stromberg appealed, challenging both the liability and damages rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s liability ruling, agreeing that the 2019 Settlement between Stromberg and Local 5 did not preclude the Funds from seeking delinquent contributions. The court emphasized that multiemployer benefit plans have distinct interests from local unions and are not bound by settlements to which they are not parties.However, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s damages ruling. The appellate court concluded that while the Funds could rely on the CBA’s default staffing ratio to approximate damages due to Stromberg’s failure to maintain adequate records, Stromberg had presented sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Funds’ damages calculation. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address the disputed damages issue. View "Sheet Metal Workers' Health & Welfare Fund of North Carolina v. Stromberg Metal Works, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1983, an Arkansas rural electric distribution cooperative, Carroll Electric, entered into a lease agreement with the City of Berryville and constructed a telecommunications tower. In 1994, Carroll Electric subleased the tower to Northwest Arkansas RSA Limited Partnership, allowing them to install and maintain radio communications equipment. The sublease was renewed multiple times, and in 2011, a Second Amendment was added, extending the agreement for additional terms unless terminated with six months' notice. In 2015, Northwest Arkansas was dissolved, and Alltel Corporation became its successor. In 2022, Alltel notified Carroll Electric of its intent to terminate the agreement, effective October 2022.Carroll Electric filed a breach of contract lawsuit in Arkansas state court, alleging wrongful termination. Alltel removed the case to the Western District of Arkansas, citing diversity jurisdiction. The district court granted Alltel's motion to dismiss, concluding that the contract unambiguously allowed Alltel to terminate the agreement. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to Alltel as the prevailing party under Arkansas law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the contract provisions were unambiguous and did not conflict. The court held that Section 8(c) of the initial sublease allowed termination with six months' notice, while the Second Amendment dealt with automatic renewal, not termination. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Carroll Electric Cooperative v. Alltel Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Jay and Siv Bennett, along with their corporation Kesha Marketing, Inc., were long-time associates of Isagenix International LLC, a multi-level marketing company. In May 2023, Isagenix informed the Bennetts that it would not renew their accounts, which were set to expire in June 2023. The Bennetts, whose sole income came from Isagenix commissions, sued the company and obtained a preliminary injunction to prevent the termination of their business relationship.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the Bennetts were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The court concluded that the contracts between the Bennetts and Isagenix were likely bilateral and that the modifications allowing Isagenix to terminate the contracts at will were not valid under Arizona law. The district court also found that the Bennetts would suffer irreparable harm due to the contractual limitation on consequential damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court that the Bennetts had shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The Ninth Circuit held that the contracts were likely bilateral and that the modifications were not validly executed under Arizona law. However, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred in its analysis of irreparable harm. The appellate court held that a contractual limitation on consequential damages does not constitute irreparable harm for purposes of equity. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the Bennetts' other theories of irreparable injury. View "BENNETT V. ISAGENIX INTERNATIONAL LLC" on Justia Law

Thomas Mooney, the plaintiff, was employed as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) for Dr. Douglas Fife, Heather Fife, and Fife Dermatology, PC, doing business as Vivida Dermatology. Mooney raised concerns about improper billing practices at Vivida. After a conversation with Dr. Ken Landow, a dermatologist from another practice, Vivida terminated Mooney's employment, citing unauthorized disclosure of confidential information in violation of his employment agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of Vivida on all three of Mooney's claims: False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court concluded that Mooney's reporting of billing irregularities did not put Vivida on notice of potentially protected conduct under the FCA. It also found that Mooney had violated the confidentiality provision of his employment agreement and that his claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing failed because he did not argue that Vivida literally complied with the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment. The appellate court held that the district court erred in applying the relevant substantive law for Mooney's FCA retaliation claim and failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mooney for his breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. The Ninth Circuit clarified that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to FCA retaliation claims and that the Moore test for protected conduct continues to apply following the 2009 amendment to the FCA. The court concluded that Mooney engaged in protected conduct, satisfied the notice requirement, and established genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Vivida's reasons for his termination were pretextual. The court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "MOONEY V. FIFE" on Justia Law

Michael Terpin, a cryptocurrency investor, sued AT&T Mobility, LLC after hackers gained control over his phone number through a fraudulent "SIM swap," received password reset messages for his online accounts, and stole $24,000,000 of his cryptocurrency. Terpin alleged that AT&T failed to adequately secure his account, leading to the theft.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed some of Terpin's claims for failure to state a claim and later granted summary judgment against him on his remaining claims. The court dismissed Terpin's fraud claims and punitive damages claim, holding that he failed to allege that AT&T had a duty to disclose or made a promise with no intent to perform. The court also held that Terpin failed to allege facts sufficient to support punitive damages. On summary judgment, the court ruled that Terpin's negligence claims were barred by the economic loss rule, his breach of contract claim was barred by the limitation of liability clause in the parties' agreement, and his claim under Section 222 of the Federal Communications Act (FCA) failed because the SIM swap did not disclose any information protected under the Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Terpin's fraud claims and punitive damages claim, agreeing that Terpin failed to allege a duty to disclose or an intent not to perform. The court also affirmed the summary judgment on Terpin's breach of contract claim, holding that consequential damages were barred by the limitation of liability clause. The court affirmed the summary judgment on Terpin's negligence claims, finding them foreclosed by the economic loss rule. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment on Terpin's claim under Section 222 of the FCA, holding that Terpin created a triable issue over whether the fraudulent SIM swap gave hackers access to information protected under the Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "TERPIN V. AT&T MOBILITY LLC" on Justia Law

Baxter Senior Living, LLC, an assisted living facility in Anchorage, Alaska, obtained an insurance policy from Zurich American Insurance Company covering various types of losses, including those caused by microorganisms. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Baxter implemented several operational restrictions and incurred additional costs. Despite these measures, the facility experienced COVID-19 cases among staff and residents. Baxter filed a claim with Zurich for loss of business income due to the pandemic, which Zurich denied.Baxter then filed a complaint in February 2022, alleging breach of contract and other claims, arguing that the presence of COVID-19 and related governmental orders caused a loss of use of its property, constituting "direct physical loss of or damage to" the property under the insurance policy. Zurich moved to dismiss the case, arguing that neither the presence of the virus nor the governmental orders constituted "direct physical loss of or damage to" property. The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska certified two questions to the Alaska Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of this phrase in the context of the pandemic.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the certified questions and concluded that neither the presence of the COVID-19 virus at an insured property nor the operational restrictions imposed by pandemic-related governmental orders constitute "direct physical loss of or damage to" the property under a commercial insurance policy. The court emphasized that "direct physical loss" requires some physical alteration or deprivation of possession of the property, and "direct physical damage" requires a tangible alteration of the property. The court noted that the presence of the virus does not physically alter the property but merely attaches to it, and the operational restrictions do not cause a physical alteration or deprivation of possession. Therefore, the court answered both certified questions in the negative. View "Baxter Senior Living, LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In June 2016, an explosion damaged a gas processing plant in Moss Point, owned by Enterprise Gas Processing LLC. Enterprise alleged that the explosion was caused by Hetsco Inc.'s negligent repair of a heat exchanger. Hetsco argued that a Proposal for Services between it and the plant's prior owner, BP, entitled it to summary judgment. The circuit court agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of Hetsco.The Jackson County Circuit Court found that BP's employee, Hayes, had apparent authority to bind BP to the Proposal for Services, which included a forum-selection clause and a two-year statute of limitations. The court concluded that the Proposal for Services was a valid and enforceable contract, and thus, Enterprise's claims were barred by the forum-selection clause and the statute of limitations.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding Hayes's apparent authority to bind BP to the Proposal for Services. The court noted that the evidence did not conclusively show that Hayes had the authority to agree to the legal terms of the Proposal for Services. Additionally, the court found that there were factual disputes about whether BP ratified the Proposal for Services and whether Enterprise could be bound by it as BP's successor.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the contractually shortened two-year statute of limitations in the Proposal for Services was unenforceable under Mississippi law. The court did not address the enforceability of the forum-selection clause, leaving that issue for the circuit court to consider on remand. View "ACE American Insurance Company v. Hetsco, Inc." on Justia Law

Michael Hermalyn, a former employee of DraftKings, left his position to join a rival company, Fanatics, based in California. DraftKings, headquartered in Massachusetts, claimed that Hermalyn's new role violated a noncompete agreement he had signed, which included a Massachusetts choice-of-law provision and a one-year noncompete clause. DraftKings sued Hermalyn in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for breach of the noncompete agreement.The district court sided with DraftKings, applying Massachusetts law to determine the enforceability of the noncompete agreement. The court found the noncompete enforceable and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Hermalyn from competing against DraftKings in the United States for one year. Hermalyn appealed, arguing that California law, which generally bans noncompetes, should apply instead of Massachusetts law. Alternatively, he argued that if Massachusetts law applied, the injunction should exclude California.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the district judge abused her discretion in granting the preliminary injunction and whether she made any legal errors in applying Massachusetts law. The appellate court found that Massachusetts law was correctly applied, noting that Massachusetts generally respects choice-of-law provisions unless they violate a fundamental policy of another state with a materially greater interest. The court concluded that Hermalyn failed to demonstrate that California's interest in banning noncompetes was materially greater than Massachusetts's interest in enforcing them.The First Circuit also upheld the scope of the preliminary injunction, rejecting Hermalyn's argument to exclude California. The court reasoned that excluding California would undermine the effectiveness of the injunction, as Hermalyn's role involved interacting with clients in states where online sports betting is legal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision and awarded costs to DraftKings. View "DraftKings Inc. v. Hermalyn" on Justia Law

Douglass Sloan provided a $60,000 short-term loan to Carlos Allen for property rehabilitation, with a 60-day term and a 20% fixed return rate. If unpaid within 60 days, the loan accrued an additional 2% every subsequent 60 days. The loan was subject to the maximum interest rate allowed by D.C. law if not repaid within 60 days. Sloan sought to collect the debt, leading to a dispute over whether the loan's interest rate was usurious, as D.C. law caps interest rates at 24% per annum.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially ruled that Allen had waived his usury defense by not raising it for nearly seven years. The court awarded Sloan $256,946.46 plus $97,450 in attorney’s fees and costs. On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the attorney’s fees but remanded the case for reconsideration of the usury defense waiver. The trial court then found no substantial prejudice to Sloan from Allen’s delay and ruled the loan usurious, reducing the award to $39,026.46, the remaining principal, plus the affirmed attorney’s fees.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case again. It upheld the trial court’s findings that Allen had not waived his usury defense and that the loan was usurious, as it effectively charged a 34.7% interest rate in its first year. The court rejected Sloan’s arguments against these findings but agreed that Sloan was entitled to post-judgment interest on the award from the date of the initial October 2020 judgment. The court also dismissed Allen’s cross-appeal, which challenged the validity of the loan and the attorney’s fees, as these issues had been resolved in a prior decision. The case was remanded for the imposition of post-judgment interest on the $39,026.46 award. View "Sloan v. Allen" on Justia Law

Ken Johansen filed a lawsuit against Liberty Mutual, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Liberty Mutual had contracted with Digitas, Inc. for marketing services, which included ensuring compliance with legal requirements. Johansen's complaint stemmed from telemarketing calls he received, which were traced back to Spanish Quotes, a subcontractor of Digitas. Liberty Mutual sought indemnification from Digitas under their Master Services Agreement (MSA), which included a warranty and indemnification clause.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reviewed the case and found that Digitas had breached its contractual duty to indemnify Liberty Mutual. The court partially granted Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment, determining that Digitas had violated its warranty by allowing telemarketing practices that led to Johansen's complaint. The court also found that Liberty Mutual had met the preconditions for triggering Digitas's indemnity obligation. However, the court did not determine the damages and closed the case, leading Digitas to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Digitas breached its warranty and that Liberty Mutual satisfied the preconditions for indemnification. The appellate court concluded that the MSA did not require a finding of actual liability for the indemnity obligation to be triggered. The court also found that Liberty Mutual had provided Digitas with the opportunity to control the defense, which Digitas did not properly assume. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address any remaining issues, including the determination of damages. View "Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Digitas, Inc." on Justia Law