Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (24 Hour) stating causes of action for premises liability, general negligence, and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs Etelvina and Pedro Jimenez appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of 24 Hour. Etelvina sustained a catastrophic injury while using a treadmill at a 24 Hour facility in Sacramento. Etelvina’s expert opined that she fell backwards off of a moving treadmill and sustained severe head injuries when she hit her head on the exposed steel foot of a leg exercise machine that 24 Hour placed approximately three feet ten inches behind the treadmill. 24 Hour filed an answer to the complaint generally denying the allegations and claiming several affirmative defenses, including the defense that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by a liability release. Plaintiffs asserted that 24 Hour was grossly negligent in setting up the treadmill in a manner that violated the manufacturer’s safety instructions. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in 24 Hour’s favor because: (1) the liability release was not enforceable against plaintiffs’ claim of gross negligence; (2) the release was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation; and (3) the release only encompasses reasonably foreseeable risks and Etelvina’s injury was not reasonably foreseeable at the time she signed the release. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with plaintiff's first two contentions. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was a CEO and director of now bankrupt Agra Services of Canada, Inc (Agra Canada) and an officer and director of Agra USA. Agra Canada entered into a purchase agreement with Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank) under which Rabobank purchased and financed certain receivables of Agra Canada. Thereafter, Defendant and Eduardo Guzman Solis, Agra Canada’s president and a manager of both Agra businesses, signed personal guarantees in favor of Rabobank. After Guzman Solis died, an investigation revealed fraudulent receivables based on nonexistent transactions submitted by Guzman Solis. Rabobank sued Agra Canada, Agra USA, and the estate of Guzman Solis seeking to recover the millions of dollars owed to Rabobank under the purchase agreement and guarantees. Defendant appeared represented by counsel but failed to retain counsel for Agra USA. The district court entered default judgment against Agra USA. Rabobank then filed this action in state court alleging that Defendant was liable under the guaranty. The Appellate Division granted Rabobank summary judgment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the default judgment against him was obtained by Rabobank’s collusion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s collusion claim constituted a defense barred by the language in the guaranty; and (2) Defendant’s claim of collusion was contradicted by the record. View "Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v. Navarro" on Justia Law

Buyer purchased a manufactured home from Sellers. The parties entered into a contract setting forth the terms of the sale and the parties obligations. The contract contained an arbitration provision under which Sellers retained the right to seek relief in a judicial forum for limited purposes. Buyer later brought a breach of contract action against Sellers, and Sellers filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion to compel, holding that the non-mutuality remedies in the arbitration provision rendered it unconscionable and invalid. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Sellers’ retention of a judicial forum for limited purposes did not render the arbitration agreement unconscionable. View "Berent v. CMH Homes, Inc." on Justia Law

Sergio Acosta petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate an order granting a motion filed by Trinity Bank to strike Acosta's jury demand with respect to all counts in Acosta's counterclaim and third-party complaint in the bank's action against him. The bank filed filed suit seeking a judgment against Acosta for financial losses it incurred after Acosta defaulted on certain "Multipurpose Note and Security Agreement[s]" he had executed with the bank. The bank alleged that Acosta had executed two secured notes and one unsecured note, which, it said, Acosta had failed and/or refused to pay; that the bank had foreclosed on the properties pledged as collateral on the secured notes; and that proper credit had been applied to the notes. The bank sought a judgment for the balance due on the notes, plus interest, fees, costs, and attorney fees. Acosta filed a counterclaim against the bank, as well as a third-party complaint against two of its officers, alleging that he had entered into a business relationship with R&B Properties under the name of SilverPalm Properties, LLC; that loans from the bank were the principal source of funding for SilverPalm; that the financing plan was for SilverPalm to procure from the bank the funds to construct the properties, for SilverPalm to pay the interest on the notes until the properties were rented, and for SilverPalm to pay off the notes once the properties generated sufficient rental income to do so. Acosta and R&B Properties dissolved SilverPalm because of a downturn in the economy; but the bank induced that Acosta was personally liable for the notes previously secured only by SilverPalm The bank at some point advised Acosta that additional security was required to continue financing the notes, that Acosta declined to pledge additional security. The bank then called the notes due and foreclosed on the properties securing the notes. Acosta requested an accounting for the amounts claimed by the bank on the notes and the mortgages securing the notes, and he sought damages based on allegations of wantonness, breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. The counterclaim and third-party complaint included a demand for a jury trial. In its motion to strike Acosta's jury demand, the Bank relied on a jury-waiver provision in four Assignments of Rents and Leases that Acosta had executed in consideration of the notes. The trial court initially denied the bank's motion to strike, and then granted it after reconsideration. The Supreme Court concluded that Acosta demonstrated a clear legal right to a jury trial on the claims asserted in his counterclaim and third-party complaint. As such, the Court granted the petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order striking Acosta's jury demand. View "Ex parte Sergio Acosta." on Justia Law

Defendants hired various construction companies to assist in the construction of a house and barn on their property. Plaintiff was one of the subcontractors that worked on the project. Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants for breach of contract, book account, and unjust enrichment seeking payment for the work it had completed but for which it had not been paid. The superior court justice entered judgment for Plaintiff on its claim of unjust enrichment but entered judgment for Defendants on the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims. The trial justice also entered an order awarding costs to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment but vacated and remanded the order, holding (1) the trial justice correctly found the three elements that a Rhode Island plaintiff must prove to recover on a claim of unjust enrichment; and (2) the trial justice erred in awarding Plaintiff’s “Application for Taxation of Costs” because the order explicitly included the fee generated by expert testimony. View "South County Post & Beam, Inc. v. McMahon" on Justia Law

Some of Plaintiffs’ cattle grazed on Defendants’ ranch. Plaintiffs sued Defendant alleging that Defendant breached numerous grazing contracts while Plaintiffs’ cattle were supposed to be calving, fattening, and breeding on Defendants’ pastures and that Defendant failed in his duty to adequately feed, supervise, and care for their cattle. The district court found that Defendant had breached the grazing contracts and awarded a total of $240,416 in damages. Defendant appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the damage award in most respects but remanded the award to the district court to correct three errors. The court also concluded that one Plaintiff, Steve Peterson, did not have standing and dismissed his claims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly found that Peterson, who failed to present evidence that he personally owned any of the cattle in question, had no standing; (2) Defendant breached the grazing contract; and (3) the court of appeals correctly resolved the question of damages. View "Peterson v. Ferrell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was an LLC formed to own, develop, and sell real estate. Defendants were two entities formed to develop and sell real estate under the management and control of two of Plaintiff’s managers. The managers transferred funds from Plaintiff to Defendants, which used the funds to develop and sell their respective properties. Plaintiff was later dissolved, and a liquidating trustee appointed by the circuit court demanded the immediate repayment of the money owed by Defendants to Plaintiff. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint against Defendants alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty and seeking the imposition of constructive trusts on Defendants’ respective properties and proceeds from the sale of their properties. The circuit court granted Defendants’ plea in bar and dismissed the amended complaint, concluding that the complaint was time barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff did not prove its entitlement to the tolling of the statute of limitations. View "Birchwood-Manassas Assocs., LLC v. Birchwood at Oak Knoll Farm, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Spectra-4 LLP and Spectet Limited Partnership, LLC, individually owned and leased neighboring commercial buildings. Uniwest Commercial Realty provided management services for the commercial buildings. As between Uniwest and Spectra-4, and between Uniwest and Spectet, two separate implied-in-fact contracts existed. The implied-in-fact contracts encompassed specific portions of previously expired express contract executed by a different set of parties. After Plaintiffs terminated Uniwest’s management services for both commercial buildings Uniwest withdrew premature termination fees and copying charges from Plaintiffs’ operating accounts. Plaintiffs filed warrants in debt against Uniwest alleging conversion. Plaintiffs later amended the complaints to include breach of contract claims. The district court awarded judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The circuit court reversed and entered judgment in favor of Uniwest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that the implied-in-fact contracts permitted Uniwest’s withdrawal of premature termination fees from Plaintiffs’ operating accounts because the implied-in-fact contracts did not include terms and conditions permitting Uniwest to withdraw premature termination fees or copying charges from the operating accounts. View "Spectra-4, LLP v. Uniwest Commercial Realty" on Justia Law

In spring of 2000, Plaintiffs hired Meyer Modernizing Company to install siding, soffits, and gutters on the home they were constructing. Plaintiffs moved into the home by late 2000. No later than 2002, Plaintiffs noticed water infiltration around window and door openings when it rained. Plaintiffs did not bring suit regarding their water infiltration claim until 2010. In 2013, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include the assertion that Meyer concealed the absence of installed flashing. Under the applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiffs were permitted to file their cause of action within six years of its accrual. The circuit court granted Meyer’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to the beginning of the six-year limitations period, and Plaintiffs offered no reason why the period of limitation should be tolled. View "Gades v. Meyer Modernizing Co." on Justia Law

In 2005, Plaintiffs purchased property from Seller, and Seller conveyed the property to Plaintiffs by deed. After the sale was finalized but before Plaintiffs were able to move into the property, Plaintiffs experienced significant flooding in the driveway, garage, and basement. The flooding and water-penetration issues persisted over the next several years. In 2010, Plaintiffs experienced extensive flooding of their property. Plaintiffs brought this action against Seller and entities involved in the sale (collectively, Defendants), alleging breach of contract, negligence, and fraud. The superior court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the superior court correctly granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ contract and negligence claims; but (2) the merger and disclaimer clause contained in the purchase and sales agreement was not drawn with sufficient specificity to bar Plaintiffs’ claim for fraud. Remanded. View "McNulty v. Chip" on Justia Law