Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sued Defendants for breach of contract and related claims. Defendants failed to file a responsive pleading, and the clerk entered Defendants’ default. The court then entered a default judgment. Defendants filed an application for relief from default under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 473(b) based on their attorney’s “sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” The superior court denied the motion. Thereafter, Defendants filed a renewed application for relief from default. Accompaying both applications were affidavits submitted by Defendants’ attorney explaining his reasons for the default. Although Defendants had not satisfied the requirements of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 1008, the superior court granted their renewed application for relief from default, concluding that section Cal. Code Civ. P. 473(b) takes precedence over section 1008, and relief under section 473(b) based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault is mandatory where no part of the fault is shown to be attributable to the attorney’s clients. The court of appeal reversed, concluding that Defendants’ failure to comply with section 1008 required the trial court to reject their renewed application for relief from default. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 1008 governs renewed applications under section 473(b) for relief from default; and (2) Defendants’ renewed application did not satisfy section 1008. View "Even Zohar Constr. & Remodeling v. Bellaire Townhouses" on Justia Law

Appellant Mike Von Jones arranged to hunt big game in Zimbabwe, Africa, with HHK Safaris (Pvt) Ltd. Jones went on the hunt and received an invoice for $26,040.00 from Respondent Safaris Unlimited LLC. Jones refused to pay Safaris Unlimited for the hunt. Safaris Unlimited filed a suit for breach of contract. Jones responded that he arranged and engaged in the hunt with HHK, not Safaris Unlimited, and therefore he had no contractual relationship with Safaris Unlimited for payment. He further alleged that he was entitled to offset any amount owed for the hunt with the value of certain trophy items from the hunt and an earlier hunt. Safaris Unlimited moved for summary judgment. The district court granted its motion and entered judgment in favor of Safaris Unlimited. Jones appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Safaris Unlimited operated as a broker or booking agent for HHK. Other than the actual hunting services provided by HHK, Safaris Unlimited coordinated and assisted on all details of the hunt, such as accommodations, transportation, and permits. The Court concluded that it was improper for the trial court to have granted summary judgment in favor of Safaris Unlimited because whether there was a contract at the heart of this matter was a genuine issue of material fact. The Court therefore vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Safaris Unlimited v. Jones" on Justia Law

Knickel approached Macquarie Bank about a loan to develop North Dakota oil and gas leases, providing confidential information about leased acreage that he had assembled over 10 years. Macquarie entered agreements with Knickel’s companies, LexMac and Novus. His other company, Lexar was not a party. Macquarie acquired a mortgage lien and perfected security interest in the leases and in their extensions or renewals. Royalties and confidential information—reserves reports on the acreage, seismic data, and geologic maps—also served as collateral. The companies defaulted. Because of the lack of development or production, many leases were set to expire. Knickel claims he agreed to renew only leases that included automatic extensions. Macquarie claims that Knickel promised to renew all leases serving as collateral in the names of LexMac and Novus. Upon the expiration of the leases without automatic extensions, Knickel entered into new leases in the name of Lexar, for development with LexMac and Novus, since they owned the confidential information. A foreclosure judgment entered, declaring that LexMac and Novus’s interest in the leases would be sold to satisfy the debt: $5,296,252.29,. Marquarie filed notice of lis pendens on Lexar’s leases, leased adjoining acreage, used the confidential information to find a buyer, and sold the leases at a profit of about $7,000,000. Marquarie filed claims of deceit, fraud, and promissory estoppel, and alleged that the corporate veil of the companies should be pierced to hold Knickel personally liable. The defendants counterclaimed misappropriation of trade secrets and unlawful interference with business. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on all but one claim and judgment that Macquarie had misappropriated trade secrets. View "Macquarie Bank Ltd. v. Knickel" on Justia Law

In 2009, Paramount contracted with the RSAs, cellular-service providers: Paramount would provide billing services and the RSAs would pay Paramount $1.05 per month for each customer billed. The contract had an initial three-year term, with continual renewal for two-year terms, unless a party gave six months’ notice. The RSAs could end the agreement before the end of a term, but would have to pay Paramount “all projected monthly fees based on the number of unexpired months remaining on” the term. The contract did not guarantee a minimum number of billings, nor did it require the RSAs to use Paramount exclusively. In 2011, the RSAs sent Paramount a letter explaining that they were switching billing companies and would want assistance. The RSAs would “send an official notice … when [they] want[ed] the system shut down.” For a year, Paramount continued to serve the RSAs while helping them transfer records. Before the transfer was finished, the initial, three-year term ended, and the contract renewed. In 2013, the RSAs stopped using Paramount, with a year remaining on the renewed term. The RSAs sought a declaratory judgment, Paramount counterclaimed for breach of contract. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Paramount, finding that the RSAs owe about $260,000 in liquidated damages. View "RSA 1 Ltd. P'ship v. Paramount Software Assocs." on Justia Law

In 2012, a fire destroyed three buildings and related equipment that were owned by Jackson Hop, LLC, and were used to dry hops, to process and bale hops, and to store hop bales. The buildings were insured by Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho for the actual cash value of the buildings and equipment, not to exceed the policy limit. Farm Bureau’s appraisers determined that the actual cash value of the buildings was $295,000 and the value of the equipment was $85,909. Farm Bureau paid Jackson Hop $380,909. Jackson Hop disagreed with that figure, and it hired its own appraiser, who concluded that the actual cash value of the buildings and equipment totaled $1,410,000. Farm Bureau retained another appraiser to review the report of Jackson Hop’s appraiser, and that appraiser concluded that the value of $1,410,000 was unrealistically high. Jackson Hop filed this action to recover the balance of what it contended was owing under the insurance policy, plus prejudgment interest. The parties agreed to submit the matter to arbitration as provided in the policy. During that process, Jackson Hop presented additional opinions regarding the actual cash values, ranging from $800,000 to $1,167,000 for the buildings and $379,108 to $399,000 for the equipment. Farm Bureau’s experts revised their opinions upward, although only from $295,000 to $333,239 for the buildings and from $85,909 to $133,000 for the equipment. Before completion of the arbitration, Farm Bureau paid an additional sum of $85,330. Arbitrators determined that the actual cash value of the buildings and the equipment was $740,000 and $315,000, respectively, for a total of $1,055,000. Within seven days of the arbitrators’ decision, Farm Bureau paid Jackson Hop $588,761, which was the amount of the arbitrators’ award less the prior payments. Jackson Hop filed a motion asking the district court to confirm the arbitrators’ award and to award Jackson Hop prejudgment interest, court costs, and attorney fees. Farm Bureau filed an objection to the request for court costs, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest. The court awarded Jackson Hop attorney fees, but denied the request for court costs because the parties’ arbitration agreement stated that both parties would pay their own costs, and the court denied the request for prejudgment interest because the amount of damages was unliquidated and unascertainable by a mathematical process until the arbitrators’ award. Jackson Hop then appealed. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jackson Hop v. Farm Bureau Insurance" on Justia Law

Appellant, Stilwyn, Inc., brought suit against the Respondents stating nine claims for relief arising out of a failed transaction to purchase an interest in a loan. The district court dismissed those claims, holding that they were barred by prior federal litigation involving Stilwyn, two of the Respondents, and the same failed transaction. It held the claims were barred by claim preclusion and because the claims were compulsory counterclaims in the federal litigation that were not asserted there. Stilwyn argued on appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court that the district court erred in both respects. Respondents cross-appealed to argue that the district court erred in failing to grant their requests for attorney fees. Respondents also requested attorney fees on appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) the district court erred in its conclusion that Stilwyn's claims were barred by claim preclusion; (2) the district court erred in concluding that Stilwyn's claims were compulsory in the federal litigation; and (3) the district court did not err in refusing to grant attorney fees. View "Stilwyn, Inc. v. Rokan Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this putative class action against Defendants - Nisource Corporate Services Company and AGL Resources, Inc. - alleging that Defendants engaged in deceptive business practices by disguising credit sales of hot water heaters as leases to avoid making the disclosures required under federal and Massachusetts’ consumer protection laws. Plaintiff alleged three disclosure violations: (1) a federal claim under the Truth in Lending Act; (2) a state law claim under the Massachusetts Retail Installment Sales and Services Act (RISSA) and (3) a state law claim under the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act (CCCDA). The district court found that Plaintiff did not qualify for protection in light of the state-law standards governing these transactions and dismissed her suit. The First Circuit affirmed on alternate grounds, holding (1) Plaintiff’s federal claim under TILA is barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) as to the pendent state law claims, which were timely, the Court affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim. View "Philibotte v. Nisource Corp. Services Co." on Justia Law

Arborjet, Inc. (Plaintiff), which manufactures and sells an emamectin benzoate solution used to protect trees from pests called TREE-age, granted Rainbow Treecare Scientific Advancements, Inc. (Defendant) an exclusive right to distribute TREE-age pursuant to a sales agency contract. After termination of this agreement, Defendant began marketing and distributing ArborMectin, another emamectin benzoate combination meant to compete directly with TREE-age. Plaintiff sued Defendant seeking to enjoin Defendant’s sales of ArborMectin and alleging several claims. The district court granted Plaintiff a preliminary injunction to run during the litigation that was meant to enforce the contractual agreement and prohibit a trademark violation. The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the order comprising the preliminary injunction, holding (1) it was not clear error to find a likely showing that Defendant contributed to the creation of ArborMectin; (2) the district court did not err in entering the portion of the preliminary injunction based on Arborjet’s contract claim; but (3) ordering proper attribution of “Arborjet” and “TREE-age” was improper given the district court’s rulings on the Lanham Act claims. View "Arborjet, Inc. v. Rainbow Treecare Scientific Advancements, Inc." on Justia Law

The Cleveland Indians hired National to produce Kids Day events at baseball games, with attractions, including an inflatable bouncy castle and inflatable slide. The contract required National to secure a five-million-dollar comprehensive liability policy. National submitted an Application to Doodson Insurance Brokerage, stating on the application that the Kids Day events would include inflatable attractions. Doodson arranged for National to obtain a policy, but it excluded from coverage injuries caused by inflatable slides. Johnson admiring a display at a 2010 Indians game, was crushed by an inflatable slide that collapsed onto him. He died of his injuries. Johnson’s estate won a $3.5 million state court default judgment against National. The Sixth Circuit held that the insurance policy did not cover Johnson’s injuries. National and the Indians sued Doodson and obtained settlements. Johnson’s estate, which has not collected on the default judgment against National, sued Doodson, alleging negligence and breach of contract. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal. Under Michigan law, the broker’s contractual duty to its client to protect the client from negligence suits, without more, does not create a tort duty to an injured party who brings such suits and Johnson was neither a party to nor an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between the broker and National. View "Johnson v. Doodson Ins. Brokerage" on Justia Law

Employees of Instant, an information-technology staffing firm sign agreements in which they promise not to solicit business from Instant’s clients, not to recruit Instant’s employees to other jobs, and not to disclose the firm’s sensitive information to outsiders. DeFazio was Instant’s Vice President until 2012, when she was fired. She was already cofounding Connect, a new tech-staffing firm, and began working there immediately, along with several coworkers she persuaded to leave Instant. Connect won business from several of Instant’s recent clients. Instant sued DeFazio and others for breaching the restrictive covenants and under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030. DeFazio counterclaimed, alleging that Instant shortchanged her on a bonus. The court concluded that no one is liable to anyone else. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that defendants did not leak or otherwise misuse Instant’s proprietary data. Defendants admitted breaching the covenants not to solicit and not to recruit, but in Illinois a restrictive covenant in an employment agreement is valid only if it serves a “legitimate business interest.” The district court concluded that neither covenant did. Tech-staffing firms do not build relationships with clients that would justify restricting their employees from setting out on their own. View "Instant Tech. LLC v. DeFazio" on Justia Law