Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Dignity Health, operating as French Hospital Medical Center, filed a complaint against orthopedic surgeon Troy I. Mounts, M.D., and his corporation to recover an advance paid under their Physician Recruitment Agreement. Mounts filed a cross-complaint alleging retaliation for his complaints about patient care quality, interference with his economic opportunities, and unlawful business practices. Dignity responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, which the trial court initially denied. The appellate court reversed this decision and remanded the case for further consideration.Upon remand, the trial court concluded that Mounts had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court found that Dignity's actions were protected by the litigation privilege, the common interest privilege, and were barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, the court granted Dignity's motion to strike the cross-complaint and ordered Mounts to pay Dignity's attorney fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that all of Mounts' claims were based on conduct protected by the litigation privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (b)) and the common interest privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (c)). The court also found that Dignity's actions were immune under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 11137) and that some claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court upheld the trial court's orders granting the motion to strike and awarding attorney fees to Dignity. View "Dignity Health v. Mounts" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued a former employee, the defendant, for breaching a noncompete agreement, violating the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), and breaching a common-law duty of confidentiality. The defendant, who had signed a noncompete agreement as a condition of continued employment, later established his own floor coating business and used the plaintiff’s proprietary information to develop competing products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also assisted competitors in developing their products.In a separate but related case, the trial court found the noncompete agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and ruled that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. The court also determined that a payment made to the defendant after his resignation was severance pay, not compensation for reaffirming the noncompete agreement. Based on these findings, the trial court in the present case granted summary judgment for the defendant, applying collateral estoppel to preclude further consideration of the issues.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had incorrectly determined the noncompete agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the breach of the noncompete agreement claim and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the agreement was supported by adequate consideration. The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the severance payment was not consideration for reaffirming the noncompete agreement and that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. These rulings were binding in the present case. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, with further proceedings required to determine the enforceability and potential breach of the noncompete agreement. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a developer and manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued several individual and corporate defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets, among other claims. The key individual defendant, S, was a former employee who developed a product called Poly-Crete for the plaintiff. After resigning, S started his own business and developed similar products, allegedly using the plaintiff’s trade secrets. The plaintiff claimed that S and other defendants, including companies that tested and used S’s products, misappropriated its trade secrets.The trial court conducted a bench trial in three phases. In the first phase, the court found that the plaintiff’s formulas for Poly-Crete and other products were trade secrets but ruled that the noncompete agreement S signed was unenforceable due to lack of consideration. The court also found that the plaintiff’s common-law confidentiality claim was preempted by the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).In the second phase, the court found that S and some defendants misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets to create products like ProKrete and ProSpartic. However, it ruled that other defendants, including Indue, Krone, ECI, and Merrifield, did not misappropriate the trade secrets as they did not know or have reason to know about the misappropriation. The court also granted attorney’s fees to Krone and ECI, finding the plaintiff’s claims against them were made in bad faith.In the third phase, the court ordered the defendants who misappropriated the trade secrets to disgorge profits and enjoined them from using the trade secrets. The court also sanctioned the plaintiff for attempted spoliation of evidence by its president, F, who tried to remove incriminating photos from the company’s Facebook page during the trial.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on most issues but reversed the judgment regarding the enforceability of the noncompete agreement and the standard for determining misappropriation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these issues. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Robert and Stephen Samuelian (the Samuelians) and Life Generations Healthcare, LLC (the Company), which they co-founded along with Thomas Olds, Jr. The Samuelians sold a portion of their interest in the Company, and the new operating agreement included a noncompetition provision. The Samuelians later challenged this provision in arbitration, arguing it was unenforceable under California law.The arbitrator found the noncompetition provision invalid per se under California Business and Professions Code section 16600, as it arose from the sale of a business interest. The arbitrator also ruled that the Samuelians did not owe fiduciary duties to the Company because they were members of a manager-managed limited liability company. The Company argued that the arbitrator had legally erred by applying the per se standard instead of the reasonableness standard. The trial court reviewed the arbitrator’s ruling de novo, found no error, and confirmed the award.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the arbitrator had applied the wrong standard under section 16600. The court concluded that noncompetition agreements arising from the partial sale of a business interest should be evaluated under the reasonableness standard, not the per se standard. The court reasoned that a partial sale leaves the seller with some ongoing connection to the business, which could have procompetitive benefits. Therefore, such restraints require further scrutiny to determine their reasonableness.The court reversed the trial court’s judgment confirming the arbitration award and directed the trial court to enter an order denying the Samuelians’ petition to confirm the award and granting the Company’s motion to vacate the entire award, including the portion awarding attorney fees and costs. View "Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

Thomas Schmidt filed a lawsuit against his former attorney, Gary Dubin, and Dubin Law Offices, alleging that Dubin breached contractual and other duties in representing Schmidt in a separate lawsuit and improperly retained a $100,000 retainer. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted partial summary judgment in favor of Dubin, ruling that Schmidt's claims were time-barred and awarded Dubin attorneys' fees and costs as the prevailing party. Schmidt appealed the decision.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reviewed the case and found that the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment on Schmidt's breach of contract claims, as there were genuine issues of material fact regarding when the cause of action accrued. The ICA vacated the Circuit Court's judgment on these claims but affirmed the judgment in all other respects, including the award of attorneys' fees and costs to Dubin. Schmidt filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the ICA should also vacate the award of attorneys' fees and costs, which the ICA denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that the ICA erred in affirming the Circuit Court's judgment for attorneys' fees and costs after vacating the summary judgment on Schmidt's breach of contract claims. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment to the extent it affirmed the award of attorneys' fees and costs and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Supreme Court emphasized that when a judgment upon which attorneys' fees and costs were based is vacated, the related fees and costs should also be vacated. View "Schmidt v. Dubin" on Justia Law

Highland Capital Management, L.P. (Highland) was an investment fund managed by James Dondero, who also managed several of its subsidiaries. Highland had a practice of lending money to its subsidiaries and to Dondero personally. During Highland's bankruptcy proceedings, Dondero was removed, and a court-appointed board took over. The board attempted to collect on promissory notes executed in Highland's favor by the subsidiaries and Dondero. When they refused to pay, Highland initiated adversary actions in bankruptcy court.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas handled the initial proceedings. Highland filed several adversary actions against Dondero and the subsidiaries, seeking enforcement of the promissory notes. The cases were consolidated, and the bankruptcy court recommended granting summary judgment in favor of Highland. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas adopted the recommendations and entered judgment against all defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Highland had established a prima facie case for the validity and enforceability of the promissory notes. The court found that the defendants' arguments, including claims of oral agreements to forgive the loans, lack of authority to sign the notes, mutual mistake, prepayment, and Highland's responsibility to make payments, were unsupported by credible evidence. The court concluded that there were no genuine disputes of material fact and that Highland was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Highland Capital v. NexPoint Asset" on Justia Law

A business dispute arose between M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. (M&M), a Pennsylvania company, and Cambria Company, LLC (Cambria), a Minnesota company. Cambria manufactures and sells quartz surface products, while M&M sells custom countertops and cabinetry. In 2009, the two companies entered into a business relationship where M&M would purchase finished quartz products from Cambria. In 2017, Cambria terminated the relationship, claiming M&M owed over $180,000 for delivered products. Cambria sued for the unpaid amount, and M&M counterclaimed under the Minnesota Franchise Act, alleging unfair termination practices.The district court granted summary judgment for Cambria on M&M’s counterclaim, ruling that M&M did not pay a franchise fee, a requirement under the Act to qualify as a franchise. The court noted that payments for goods at a bona fide wholesale price are excluded from the definition of a franchise fee. The court of appeals affirmed, agreeing that M&M did not pay a franchise fee and additionally concluded that M&M, being an out-of-state company, was precluded from bringing a claim under the Act.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Minnesota Franchise Act does not categorically preclude an out-of-state company from enforcing a claim for unfair practices. However, the court agreed with the lower courts that M&M did not pay a franchise fee. The court found that M&M’s payments to Cambria for finished quartz products were at a bona fide wholesale price and did not include a hidden franchise fee. Therefore, the relationship between M&M and Cambria did not constitute a franchise under the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Cambria. View "Cambria Company, LLC vs. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc." on Justia Law

Kerry and Jeanie Cooper entered into a five-year lease agreement with James and Melisa Crouch to lease farmland for pasturing cattle and growing crops. The lease was set to expire in February 2022, but the Crouches terminated it early, citing the Coopers' failure to employ standard best management practices. The Coopers filed a lawsuit for breach of contract, claiming they were not given adequate notice or an opportunity to cure any alleged default as required by the lease.The District Court of Fremont County found that the Crouches breached the lease by failing to provide the required notice and opportunity to cure. The court awarded the Coopers $153,772.05 in damages, which included costs for feed, supplements, trucking, and replacement pasture. The court also reduced the damages by $24,650.35 for the Coopers' failure to mitigate damages by selling leftover hay.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's findings. The court held that the Crouches did not provide the Coopers with a meaningful opportunity to cure the alleged default, as the termination letter did not specify how to remedy the issues. The court also rejected the Crouches' first-to-breach defense, stating that they could not rely on the Coopers' alleged breach to excuse their own failure to provide proper notice.However, the Supreme Court found that the district court had erroneously included the costs of the pasture leases twice in its damages calculation. The court remanded the case with instructions to reduce the damages award by $2,660.60, affirming the decision in all other respects. View "Crouch v. Cooper" on Justia Law

In February 2019, the Colberts entered into a real-estate sales contract with A & W Contractors, LLC to purchase a remodeled 54-year-old house. A home inspection revealed issues with the plumbing, septic system, and electrical wiring. The parties amended the contract to address these issues, and A&W claimed to have made the necessary repairs. Despite lingering concerns, the Colberts proceeded with the purchase after A&W's real-estate agent allegedly offered a three-month builder's warranty. After moving in, the Colberts experienced significant problems with the house's systems and spent approximately $90,000 on repairs.The Colberts sued A&W, and the case went to trial in the Jefferson Circuit Court. The jury found in favor of the Colberts on their breach-of-contract and fraud claims, awarding them compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict and denied A&W's post-trial motions to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment or for a new trial.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It held that the trial court erred in granting a judgment as a matter of law (JML) in favor of the Colberts on their breach-of-contract claim, as there was conflicting evidence that should have been resolved by the jury. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict on the fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent suppression claims, noting that A&W had failed to preserve certain evidentiary and sufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments for appellate review. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "A & W Contractors, LLC v. Colbert" on Justia Law

In this case, SARN SD3 LLC ("SD3") brought a breach of contract action against Czechoslovak Group A.S. ("CSG") regarding an option contract for shares in RETIA A.S. ("RETIA"). The contract stipulated that if CSG ceased to own a majority of RETIA before SD3's call option expired, CSG would pay SD3 a "Penalty Amount" based on an "Independent Valuation" of RETIA. CSG sold RETIA, triggering the Penalty Amount, but disputes arose over access to valuation information, leading SD3 to file suit.The Superior Court of Delaware granted SD3's entitlement to the Penalty Amount and calculated the Independent Valuation as the average of two valuations from Big Four accounting firms, despite CSG's objections. The court later determined that SD3's valuation was independently determined and in good faith. SD3 then filed a Rule 37 Motion for sanctions, alleging CSG withheld important valuation documents, but the court denied the motion, suggesting SD3 seek relief under Rule 60(b) for newly discovered evidence. SD3's subsequent Rule 60 Motion was also denied, as the court found the documents were not newly discovered and no exceptional circumstances warranted relief.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decisions. The Supreme Court held that the contract's provisions were clear and unambiguous, not requiring judicial inquiry into the valuation methodologies. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court's handling of the Rule 37 and Rule 60 motions, as SD3 had the documents in question well before the summary judgment ruling and failed to demonstrate due diligence. Additionally, the Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court's decision to convert the judgment to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate as of the valuation date, rejecting SD3's arguments for a different conversion date. View "Czechoslovak Group A.S. v. SARN SD3 LLC" on Justia Law