Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Two licensed wrecker services in Connecticut were summoned by state police to remove a severely damaged tractor trailer from a highway accident. The wrecker services used specialized equipment, including a costly rotator truck, to recover and tow the vehicle, then transported it to their storage facility. They sent an itemized invoice to the vehicle owner’s insurer, which included charges for the use of special equipment and supervisory personnel. The insurer paid the invoice under protest and subsequently filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, arguing that the charges were excessive and not permitted under state regulations.A Department of Motor Vehicles hearing officer determined that the wrecker services had overcharged for their nonconsensual towing services by using their own rate schedule based on equipment rather than the hourly labor rate set by the commissioner. Most equipment-based charges were disallowed, and the wrecker services were ordered to pay restitution and a civil penalty. The Superior Court dismissed the wrecker services’ administrative appeal, finding the hearing officer’s conclusions supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the regulations required fees for exceptional services to be based solely on the hourly labor rate, excluding equipment costs.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the relevant regulation, § 14-63-36c (c), was ambiguous and could reasonably be interpreted to allow wrecker services to charge additional fees for exceptional services, including costs associated with special equipment, provided those fees are itemized and posted in accordance with regulatory requirements. The Court held that prohibiting such charges would prevent wrecker services from recouping necessary costs and could undermine the availability of exceptional towing services. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation. View "Modzelewski's Towing & Storage, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

Several development groups entered into a public improvement contract with a Texas city, purchasing over 60 acres of land, much of it in a flood zone. The developers received a variance from the city, exempting them from obtaining a federal floodplain permit (CLOMR), and invested significant funds in developing the property, including constructing a bridge. In 2018, the parties executed updated agreements, including a Master Development Agreement (MDA), which required certain conditions to be met within five years or the contract would automatically terminate, ending the city’s reimbursement obligations. As the deadline approached, the city informed the developers that they would now need to obtain the previously waived CLOMR, citing a later-enacted ordinance. Unable to comply in time, the developers sought an extension, which the city council denied, resulting in termination of the MDA.The developers sued in Texas state court, alleging the city’s actions constituted an unconstitutional taking under federal and state law, and also brought claims for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Vested Rights Statute. The city removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and moved to dismiss. The district court dismissed the federal takings and declaratory judgment claims, finding the developers had not sufficiently alleged that the city acted in its sovereign rather than commercial capacity, and remanded the remaining state-law claims to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the developers’ allegations arose from a contractual dispute, not a sovereign act by the city, and thus did not state a plausible takings claim under the Fifth Amendment. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim, as the core issues would be resolved in the remanded state court action. View "Mesquite Asset Recovery Grp v. City of Mesquite" on Justia Law

A business operating a strip club featuring nude dancing and alcohol sales entered into a settlement agreement with DeKalb County, Georgia, in 2001, which was later amended in 2007. The amended agreement granted the club non-conforming status, allowing it to continue its business model for fifteen years, with the possibility of renewal, and required annual licensing fees. In 2013, the City of Chamblee annexed the area containing the club and subsequently adopted ordinances restricting adult entertainment establishments, including bans on alcohol sales, stricter food sales requirements for alcohol licenses, and earlier closing times. The City initially issued alcohol licenses to the club but later denied renewal, citing failure to meet new requirements and the club’s status as an adult establishment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed some of the club’s claims for lack of standing and granted summary judgment to the City on the remaining claims. The district court found that the club lacked standing to challenge certain ordinances as it was not an alcohol licensee, and that the City’s ordinances regulating adult entertainment and alcohol sales were constitutional under the secondary-effects doctrine, applying intermediate scrutiny. The court also determined there was no valid contract between the club and the City, rejecting the Contract Clause claims, and found no equal protection violation, as the club failed to identify a similarly situated comparator.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Eleventh Circuit held that the club lacked standing for equitable relief due to its permanent closure, but had standing for damages for a limited period. The court upheld the application of intermediate scrutiny to the ordinances, found no impairment of contract, and agreed that the club failed to establish an equal protection violation. The district court’s judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. View "WBY, Inc. v. City of Chamblee, Georgia" on Justia Law

A borrower in Rhode Island financed a home purchase with a mortgage from a national bank. The mortgage required the borrower to make advance payments for property taxes and insurance into an escrow account managed by the bank. The bank did not pay interest on these escrowed funds, despite a Rhode Island statute mandating that banks pay interest on such accounts. Years later, the borrower filed a class action lawsuit against the bank, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment for failing to pay the required interest under state law.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed the complaint, agreeing with the bank that the National Bank Act preempted the Rhode Island statute. The court reasoned that the state law imposed limits on the bank’s federal powers, specifically the power to establish escrow accounts, and thus significantly interfered with the bank’s incidental powers under federal law. The court did not address class certification or the merits of the unjust enrichment claim, focusing solely on preemption.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., which clarified the standard for preemption under the National Bank Act. The First Circuit held that the district court erred by not applying the nuanced, comparative analysis required by Cantero. The appellate court found that the bank failed to show that the Rhode Island statute significantly interfered with its federal banking powers or conflicted with the federal regulatory scheme. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the borrower’s claims to proceed. View "Conti v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on an option agreement for the lease of approximately 598 acres of land owned by one party and sought by another for use in a biomass power plant operation. The option agreement granted the potential lessee an irrevocable one-year option to lease the property, with a proposed lease attached that included some terms, such as base rent amounts, but omitted others, including the effective date and certain pricing details for a percentage rent provision. After the lessee attempted to exercise the option, the lessor sent a lease largely in the form of the proposed lease, but with key terms still blank. The lessee never signed this lease, and the parties disagreed about whether a binding lease had been formed.The owner filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit, seeking breach of contract and specific performance. After a bench trial, the circuit court found that the proposed lease was missing essential terms and that the parties did not intend to be bound by it when executing the option agreement. The court granted the lessee’s motion for directed verdict, awarded attorneys’ fees and costs, and entered final judgment. On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the proposed lease was sufficiently definite and enforceable, and that the parties were bound by its terms upon exercise of the option.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i reviewed the ICA’s decision. It held that the proposed lease lacked sufficiently definite terms, specifically regarding the effective date and percentage rent provision, and that the parties did not intend to be bound by the proposed lease without further negotiation. The Supreme Court reversed the ICA’s judgment and affirmed the circuit court’s directed verdict, fee award, and final judgment in favor of the lessee. View "Moloaa Farms LLC v. Green Energy Team LLC" on Justia Law

A dispute arose over the ownership of a 2021 Mercedes-Benz G63. Phoenix Motor Company (PMC), operating as Mercedes-Benz of Scottsdale, purchased the vehicle through a wholesaler, but the intermediary, Fredrick Aljundi, diverted the car to another dealership instead of delivering it to PMC. Subsequently, Zakia J. Rajabian and Dulceria La Bonita Wholesale (collectively, Dulceria) acquired the car from the second dealership and took steps to conceal its location. PMC, with assistance from Mercedes-Benz USA, located the car using tracking technology.Litigation began in the Maricopa County Superior Court, where PMC sued Dulceria and others for breach of contract and related claims, and Dulceria counterclaimed. The state court initially granted PMC possession of the car and, after further proceedings, found PMC to be the rightful owner. While the state case was ongoing, Dulceria filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, asserting claims including invasion of privacy and violations of federal and state statutes. PMC moved to dismiss or stay the federal case under the Colorado River doctrine, which allows federal courts to stay proceedings in favor of parallel state litigation. The district court granted a stay in November 2023 and formalized it in a minute order in December 2023. Dulceria later moved to lift the stay, but the district court denied the motion in April 2024.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the December 2023 minute order constituted a final, appealable order, starting the 30-day appeal period. Because Dulceria did not appeal the initial stay within that period, the court dismissed that portion of the appeal as untimely. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to lift the stay, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in maintaining the stay under the Colorado River doctrine, as there were no material changes in law or fact to warrant lifting it. View "RAJABIAN V. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC" on Justia Law

WorldVue Connect, LLC, a company specializing in in-room entertainment and technology for hotels, purchased the domestic assets of Hospitality WiFi, LLC from Jason Szuch for $9,450,000 in 2022. Szuch retained interests in international affiliates and received a minority stake in a new entity, WorldVue Global, LLC. The transaction included the transfer of goodwill, trade secrets, and a valuable technical support team. In 2024, after the business relationship soured, WorldVue bought out Szuch’s minority interest and entered into a settlement agreement with Szuch and his companies, as well as a separation agreement with a key employee, Shan Griffin. These agreements, governed by Texas law, contained non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions effective for one year.Following the agreements, evidence emerged that the Szuch Parties recruited WorldVue’s employees and independent contractors, including those providing remote support to clients in the contractually defined “Restricted Area.” WorldVue filed suit in Texas state court for breach of contract and tortious interference, seeking injunctive relief. The state court issued a temporary restraining order, and after removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the TRO was extended. The district court found that the Szuch Parties breached the agreements by soliciting WorldVue’s workers and using confidential information, and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting further solicitation and use of confidential information.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that the non-solicitation provision applied to workers performing services in the Restricted Area, regardless of their physical location, and that customer service agents were covered as independent contractors. The court modified the injunction to clarify that “confidential information” does not include Szuch’s personal knowledge of worker identities acquired prior to the asset sale. View "WorldVue Connect v. Szuch" on Justia Law

Two former employees of a large technology company, along with a real estate developer and related individuals and entities, were alleged to have engaged in a kickback scheme involving real estate transactions in Northern Virginia. The employees, responsible for managing real estate deals for the company, allegedly steered contracts to the developer’s firm in exchange for secret payments funneled through a network of trusts and entities. The scheme purportedly inflated the company’s costs for both leasing and purchasing properties, with millions of dollars in kickbacks distributed among the participants. The company discovered the scheme after a whistleblower report, conducted an internal investigation, and reported the matter to federal authorities.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on several claims, including those under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion, and partially on a civil conspiracy claim. The district court found that the company failed to establish the existence of a RICO enterprise, did not show injury to its business or property, and that equitable claims were precluded by the availability of legal remedies or the existence of contracts. The court also ruled that an attorney defendant could not be liable for conspiracy with his clients.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The appellate court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the existence of a RICO enterprise, whether the company suffered financial harm, and the viability of the fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and civil conspiracy claims. The court clarified that the company was entitled to pursue legal and equitable remedies in the alternative and that the attorney’s potential liability for conspiracy could not be resolved on summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Amazon.com, Inc. v. WDC Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

Yellow Corporation, a major trucking company, ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy in 2023. As a result, it withdrew from several multiemployer pension plans, triggering withdrawal liability—an amount owed to the pension plans to cover unfunded vested benefits for employees. The pension plans, which had received substantial federal funds under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) to stabilize their finances, filed claims against Yellow’s bankruptcy estate for withdrawal liability. The dispute centered on how much of the ARPA funds should be counted as plan assets when calculating Yellow’s liability, as well as whether certain contractual terms could require Yellow to pay a higher withdrawal liability than statutory minimums.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware reviewed the claims. It upheld two regulations issued by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC): the Phase-In Regulation, which requires ARPA funds to be counted as plan assets gradually over time, and the No-Receivables Regulation, which bars plans from counting ARPA funds as assets before they are actually received. The Bankruptcy Court found these regulations to be valid exercises of PBGC’s authority and not arbitrary or capricious. It also ruled that two pension plans could enforce a contractual provision requiring Yellow to pay withdrawal liability at a higher, agreed-upon rate, rather than the rate based solely on its actual contributions.On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order. The Third Circuit held that the PBGC’s regulations were valid under ARPA and ERISA, as Congress had expressly delegated authority to the PBGC to set reasonable conditions on the allocation of plan assets and withdrawal liability. The court also held that pension plans could enforce contractual terms requiring higher withdrawal liability, as the statutory scheme sets a floor, not a ceiling, for such liability. View "In re: Yellow Corporation" on Justia Law

After Hurricane Laura damaged an offshore platform owned by Genesis Energy, Genesis contracted with Danos, LLC to perform repairs. To support the project, Genesis also chartered a vessel from a third party to house and transport the repair crew and equipment. During the course of repairs, a Danos employee was injured while being transferred from the platform to the vessel and subsequently sued Danos, Genesis, and the vessel owner. Genesis filed a crossclaim against Danos, seeking defense and indemnification under a 2008 Master Services Agreement, arguing that the contract required Danos to indemnify Genesis for such claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment from Genesis and Danos. The district court determined that the contract between Genesis and Danos was not a “maritime contract” under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and relevant Fifth Circuit precedent, specifically In re Larry Doiron, Inc. As a result, Louisiana law applied, which rendered the indemnification provision unenforceable. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Danos, denied Genesis’s motion, and dismissed Genesis’s crossclaim with prejudice. The court’s order was designated as a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and Genesis appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the contract was not a maritime contract because the parties did not expect the vessel to play a substantial role in the completion of the repair work; its functions were limited to transportation, housing, and ancillary support, which are insufficient under the applicable legal standard. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Louisiana law applied and the indemnification provision was unenforceable. View "Genesis Energy v. Danos" on Justia Law