Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Shawn Montgomery was severely injured when his truck was hit by a tractor-trailer driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, who was employed by motor carrier Caribe Transport II, LLC. The shipment was coordinated by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., a freight broker. Montgomery sued Varela-Mojena, Caribe, and Robinson, alleging that Robinson negligently hired Varela-Mojena and Caribe and was vicariously liable for their actions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted partial summary judgment in favor of Robinson on the vicarious liability claim, finding that Varela-Mojena and Caribe were independent contractors, not agents of Robinson. Following the Seventh Circuit's decision in Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., which held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts state law claims against freight brokers for negligent hiring, the district court also granted judgment for Robinson on the negligent hiring claims. Final judgment was entered in favor of Robinson to facilitate Montgomery's appeal, while his claims against Varela-Mojena and Caribe were stayed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that Robinson did not exercise the necessary control over Caribe and Varela-Mojena to establish an agency relationship, thus negating vicarious liability. The court also declined to overrule its precedent in Ye, maintaining that the FAAAA preempts state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Robinson. View "Montgomery v. C.H. Robinson Company" on Justia Law

Duane and Melody Remington purchased a campground and later discovered various defects on the property. They sued the seller, Keith Grimm, and the real estate agent, Bryan Iverson, alleging multiple claims including failure to disclose defects, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Remingtons claimed that Iverson and Grimm did not provide a required property disclosure statement and misrepresented the financial condition of the campground.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Pennington County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of Iverson, determining that a property disclosure statement was not required because the sale was a commercial transaction. The court did not specifically address the common law claims of nondisclosure against Iverson. The Remingtons appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that a property disclosure statement was required for the living quarters of the campground, which constituted residential real property. The court affirmed the lower court's decision that a disclosure statement was not required for the non-residential aspects of the campground. The case was remanded to determine whether Iverson breached his fiduciary duty by failing to inform the Remingtons that Grimm was required to provide a property disclosure statement for the living quarters.The court also affirmed the summary judgment on the claims of Iverson’s direct liability, concluding that the Remingtons failed to establish that Iverson had actual knowledge of the alleged defects. The court dismissed Iverson’s notice of review regarding attorney fees and costs due to lack of jurisdiction. View "Remington v. Iverson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employees of the State of California providing dental care to inmates, sued the state seeking compensation for time spent on pre- and post-shift safety and security activities. These activities included going through security and handling alarm devices. The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that these activities were not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that their wage claims were viable and that the trial court improperly decided a disputed question of fact.The trial court, Solano County Superior Court, sustained the demurrer on the grounds that the activities in question were not compensable under the FLSA. The court did not address other grounds raised by the defendants, such as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) precluding the claims, the inapplicability of the statutes to government employers, failure to exhaust contractual remedies, and the statute of limitations.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court erred in not accepting as true the plaintiffs' allegation that providing security is among their principal activities. The appellate court found that the MOU precludes plaintiffs from seeking additional wages under general state wage laws, thus affirming the demurrer as to the first and second causes of action. However, the court held that plaintiffs stated a claim for breach of contract and that the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust contractual remedies could not be resolved on demurrer. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' contract claim was not time-barred.The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing the breach of contract claim to proceed while dismissing the other claims. View "Bath v. State" on Justia Law

Govind Vaghashia and other plaintiffs appealed a trial court order denying their motion to vacate a settlement agreement with Prashant and Mita Vaghashia. The settlement involved a $35 million payment from the Govind Parties to Prashant and Mita, with specific terms about property collateral and a quitclaim deed for a residence. Disputes arose over the interpretation of the agreement, leading to motions to enforce it by both parties. The trial court enforced the agreement but not in the manner the Govind Parties desired.The Los Angeles County Superior Court initially heard the case, where Prashant and Mita sued Govind and his affiliates, claiming a 50% interest in their business ventures. Govind counter-sued for mismanagement. A bench trial began but was paused for settlement discussions, resulting in the contested agreement. When disputes over the settlement terms emerged, both parties filed motions to enforce the agreement. The trial court ruled largely in favor of Prashant and Mita, enforcing the settlement.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision, holding that the Govind Parties were judicially estopped from seeking to vacate the settlement agreement after previously moving to enforce it. The appellate court noted that the Govind Parties' positions were totally inconsistent and that they had been successful in asserting the enforceability of the agreement in their initial motion. The court affirmed the trial court's orders, including the denial of the motion to vacate the settlement agreement. View "Vaghashia v. Vaghashia" on Justia Law

Condominium owners Gregory and Kathleen Haidet filed a lawsuit against their homeowners association (HOA), Del Mar Woods Homeowners Association, alleging that their upstairs neighbors' improperly installed floors constituted a nuisance. The HOA demurred to the Haidets' initial complaint, and the trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissing one cause of action without leave to amend and two with leave to amend. The Haidets chose not to amend their claims against the HOA and instead filed an amended complaint naming only other defendants. Subsequently, the Haidets filed a motion to dismiss the HOA without prejudice, while the HOA filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The trial court granted the HOA's request for dismissal with prejudice and awarded the HOA attorney fees.The trial court found that the Haidets' breach of contract claim failed because the governing documents did not require HOA consent for installing hardwood flooring. Additionally, the claims were time-barred as the Haidets had notice of their claims starting in 2016 but did not file until 2022. The court also found that the HOA had no fiduciary duty regarding the structural violation of the governing documents and that the business judgment rule applied to the HOA's decisions. The court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim without leave to amend.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court was permitted to dismiss the HOA with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2), as the Haidets failed to amend their claims against the HOA within the allowed time. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that the HOA was the prevailing party for purposes of Civil Code section 5975 and its award of $48,229.08 in attorney fees. The judgment was affirmed. View "Haidet v. Del Mar Woods Homeowners Assn." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Chris Robles and the California Voting Rights Initiative filed a lawsuit against the City of Ontario, alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act and the California Voting Rights Act by conducting at-large elections for city council members, which they claimed diluted the electoral influence of Latino voters. The parties eventually settled, agreeing to transition to district-based elections by 2024 and included a provision for attorney fees incurred up to that point.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County initially sustained the defendants' demurrer with leave to amend, but the parties settled and submitted a stipulated judgment. The stipulated judgment included a provision for $300,000 in attorney fees and outlined the process for transitioning to district elections. Plaintiffs later filed a motion to enforce the stipulated judgment, alleging the city violated several statutory requirements related to the districting process. The trial court found the city had not complied with the stipulated judgment but denied plaintiffs' request for additional attorney fees, stating the settlement did not provide for fees beyond those already paid.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to seek additional attorney fees under the plain language of the stipulated judgment, which allowed for fees incurred in enforcing its terms. The court reversed the trial court's order denying attorney fees and remanded the case to determine whether plaintiffs were prevailing parties and, if so, the appropriate amount of attorney fees to be awarded. The appellate court clarified that the trial court's assessment of the prevailing party should focus on whether the plaintiffs achieved their litigation objectives. View "Robles v. City of Ontario" on Justia Law

LCPFV, LLC owned a warehouse with a faulty sewer pipe. After experiencing toilet backups, LCPFV hired Rapid Plumbing to fix the issue for $47,883.40. Rapid's work was unsatisfactory, so LCPFV hired another plumber for $44,077 to redo the job. LCPFV sued Rapid Plumbing, which initially responded but later defaulted. LCPFV sought a default judgment of $1,081,263.80, including attorney fees and punitive damages. The trial court awarded a default judgment of $120,319.22, which included attorney fees and other costs, and also awarded $11,852.90 in sanctions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case. Rapid Plumbing initially participated but ceased involvement after their attorney withdrew. LCPFV then filed numerous motions and requests for sanctions, despite knowing Rapid would not respond. The trial court struck Rapid's answer and granted LCPFV's motion to have its requests for admission deemed admitted, but ultimately awarded a significantly lower judgment than LCPFV sought.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing the trial court's role as a gatekeeper in default judgment cases. The appellate court found that the trial court acted within its discretion in rejecting LCPFV's use of requests for admissions to establish fraud and punitive damages. The court also upheld the trial court's reduced award of attorney fees, noting the excessive nature of LCPFV's request given the simplicity of the case and the lack of opposition. Additionally, the appellate court supported the trial court's decision on sanctions and prejudgment interest, affirming that the trial court's awards were appropriate and justified. View "LCPFV v. Somatdary" on Justia Law

The Comedy Store, a stand-up comedy venue in Los Angeles, was forced to close for over a year due to COVID-19 restrictions. In July 2021, the Store hired Moss Adams LLP, an accounting firm, to help apply for a Shuttered Venue Operator Grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration. The parties signed an agreement that included a Washington choice of law provision and a forum selection clause mandating disputes be resolved in Washington state courts. The Store alleges Moss Adams failed to inform it of the grant program's impending expiration, causing the Store to miss the application deadline and lose an $8.5 million grant.The Store initially filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Los Angeles, but the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Store then refiled in the Los Angeles Superior Court, asserting claims including gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Moss Adams moved to dismiss or stay the action based on the forum selection clause. The trial court granted the motion, contingent on Moss Adams stipulating that the Store could exercise its right to a jury trial in Washington state. Moss Adams provided such a stipulation, and the trial court signed an order to that effect.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in failing to properly allocate the burden of proof to Moss Adams to show that litigating in Washington would not diminish the Store’s unwaivable right to a jury trial. The appellate court concluded that Moss Adams did not meet this burden, as it did not demonstrate that Washington law would provide the same or greater rights to a jury trial or that a Washington court would apply California law. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded with instructions to deny Moss Adams’s motion to dismiss or stay the action. View "The Comedy Store v. Moss Adams LLP" on Justia Law

Ofek Rachel, Ltd. and M.M.N. Yad David, USA Ltd. obtained a 2016 judgment from an Israeli court against Suki Ben Zion. They then filed a lawsuit in New York to enforce this judgment, resulting in a 2017 judgment against Zion for $5.5 million. Despite claiming to have no assets, Zion was living lavishly. During post-judgment proceedings, Zion revealed that his friend, Chaim Cohen, was covering his expenses. The judgment creditors served a document subpoena on Cohen, which he initially quashed due to procedural defects. A second subpoena led to a court order compelling Cohen to provide unredacted American Express statements. Cohen's non-compliance with this order led to contempt proceedings.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found Cohen guilty of contempt for failing to comply with the discovery order. The court imposed a $3,000 fine and ordered Cohen to pay $185,095.20 in attorney’s fees and $8,964.71 in costs. Cohen appealed, challenging the court's authority to impose attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1218, arguing that he was not a party to the original litigation.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that section 1218 allows for the imposition of attorney’s fees against a person who violates a court order in post-judgment enforcement proceedings, even if that person was not a party to the original lawsuit. The court reasoned that the statutory language, legislative intent, and the broader context of post-judgment enforcement mechanisms support this interpretation. The court concluded that Cohen, as a party to the post-judgment enforcement proceedings, was subject to the court's order and liable for attorney’s fees for his contempt. View "Ofek Rachel, Ltd. v. Zion" on Justia Law

Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC, an American mattress manufacturer, executed financing deals in 2016 and 2020 with various lenders. Following financial struggles exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Serta filed for bankruptcy. The 2020 financing deal, known as the "uptier" transaction, involved Serta and some lenders (Prevailing Lenders) exchanging existing debt for new super-priority debt, which was controversial and led to multiple legal disputes.The bankruptcy court in the Southern District of Texas reviewed the case. Serta and the Prevailing Lenders sought a declaratory judgment that the 2020 uptier transaction was valid under the 2016 agreement's "open market purchase" exception. The bankruptcy court granted partial summary judgment in their favor, ruling that the term "open market purchase" was unambiguous and that the 2020 uptier was valid under this exception. The Excluded Lenders and LCM Lenders, who did not participate in the uptier, appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the 2020 uptier transaction was not a permissible "open market purchase" under the 2016 agreement. The court found that an "open market purchase" refers to transactions on a specific market generally open to various buyers and sellers, such as the secondary market for syndicated loans. The 2020 uptier, conducted privately with individual lenders, did not meet this definition. The court reversed the bankruptcy court's ruling on this issue.Additionally, the court addressed the inclusion of an indemnity provision in Serta's bankruptcy reorganization plan, which aimed to protect the Prevailing Lenders from losses related to the 2020 uptier. The court found that this indemnity was an impermissible end-run around the Bankruptcy Code's disallowance of contingent claims for reimbursement and violated the Code's requirement of equal treatment for creditors. The court reversed the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the plan insofar as it included this indemnity. View "Excluded Lenders v. Serta" on Justia Law