Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a provider of credit repair software and services to credit repair organizations (CROs), sued for breach of contract, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and interference with contract. Defendants work directly for CROs handling administrative tasks. Plaintiff provided defendants its confidential list of CROs and other proprietary information, and entered into agreements for defendants to act as a licensed reseller of plaintiff’s software. Those agreements identify Florida as the venue for dispute resolution and provide for awards of costs and fees. The court granted a temporary restraining order barring defendants from transferring any customers referred to them by plaintiff to any entity that did not use plaintiff’s software and barring defendants from making commercial use of plaintiff’s software. Defendants moved to dismiss based on the forum-selection clauses. The trial court stayed the case for 60 days and extended the preliminary injunction so that plaintiff could seek relief in Florida. After plaintiff refiled in Florida, the California trial court dismissed and dissolved the preliminary injunction. Defendants sought attorney fees of $84,640, as the prevailing parties on the motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeal agreed, stating that there has been no final resolution of the contract claims. View "DisputeSuite.com, LLC, v. Scoreinc.com" on Justia Law

A franchisee janitorial worker, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against System4 LLC, a master franchisor, and NECCS, Inc., a regional subfranchisor, alleging, among other claims, breach of contract, misclassification as independent contractors in their franchise agreements, and rescission of the franchise agreements. The franchise agreements, signed only by Plaintiffs and NEECS, required the franchisees to arbitrate virtually all disputes. Defendants, citing the arbitration clause in the franchise agreement, moved to stay the court proceedings pending arbitration. The judge concluded that because System4 was not a nonsignatory to the agreements, Plaintiffs could proceed to litigate their claims against System4 in court. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that, by reason of equitable estoppel, System4 could compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their substantive claims in accordance with the arbitration provision in Plaintiffs’ franchise agreements. Remanded. View "Machado v. System4 LLC" on Justia Law

American Messaging Services, LLC (AMS) purchased an ownership interest in DocHalo, LLC. The parties entered into an agreement establishing the terms of their business relationship. After AMS discovered that DocHalo had contacted some of AMS’s sales personnel about joining DocHalo and had unilaterally reached out to some of AMS’s customers, AMS filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference with contractual relations. AMS sought a temporary restraining order seeking DocHalo from contacting its customers and sales personnel. The Court of Chancery denied the motion, holding that while AMS established colorable claims against DocHalo, it did not appear to face imminent and irreparable harm that would justify extraordinary relief. View "Am. Messaging Servs., LLC v. DocHalo, LLC" on Justia Law

Old Colony Construction, LLC failed timely to complete a public works contract with the Town of Southington. The Town elected to terminate the contract on the basis of convenience. Old Colony subsequently filed suit against the Town alleging breach of contract. The Town counterclaimed seeking liquidated damages for breach of contract. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Old Colony on its breach of contract claim and in favor of the Town on its liquidated damages counterclaim. The court awarded the Town liquidated damages and permitted the set off of those damages against the damages awarded to Old Colony for the Town’s failure to pay sums due under the contract’s termination for convenience provision. Old Colony appealed, arguing that the Town was barred from collected liquidated damages because termination for convenience precludes any default based remedies available for termination for cause and because the Town’s contribution to the delay rendered the liquidated damages provision unenforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly awarded liquidated damages and properly denied Old Colony’s request for an equitable adjustment in the contract. View "Old Colony Constr., LLC v. Town of Southington" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an attorney, and Respondent, a non-lawyer, entered into a fee-sharing agreement in connection with certain lawsuits. Petitioner later filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment on the issue of whether Respondent was entitled to compensation for services he performed in relation to the litigation, seeking a ruling as to whether a sharing of legal fees with Respondent would violate Rule 5.4 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. The federal district court certified the following question to the Supreme Court: “Are the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct statements of public policy with the force of law equal to that given to statutes enacted by the West Virginia State Legislature?” The Supreme Court affirmed the question, as modified, in the affirmative, holding (1) Rule 5.4, which proscribes the sharing of fees between lawyers or law firms and non-lawyers, is an explicit judicial declaration of West Virginia public policy with the force and effect of law; and (2) accordingly, a fee-sharing agreement between a lawyer or law firm and the non-lawyer that violates the provisions of Rule 5.4 is void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable. View "Rich v. Simoni" on Justia Law

Shasta Linen Supply, a California corporation, applied for workers’ compensation insurance coverage from Applied Underwriters, a Nebraska corporation. Shasta accepted Applied’s proposed policy through an agreement entitled a Request to Bind Coverages & Services. On the same day, Shasta entered into a Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) with Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company (AUCRA), Applied’s subsidiary and a British Virgin Islands corporation. The request to bind and the RPA contained conflicting provisions regarding the parties’ arbitration process for resolving disputes. After a dispute arose regarding the amount of money that Shasta owed to Applied, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) acknowledged receipt of AUCRA’s demand for arbitration. Shasta filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the request to bind required arbitration by "JAMS" in Omaha, Nebraska and injunctive relief from the AAA arbitration. The court determined that it had jurisdiction to decide which contract provision controlled and issued a temporary injunction and stay of the AAA arbitration until it decided the parties’ rights. Applied and AUCRA appealed, arguing that the court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the parties’ contract dispute and granting a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the court’s temporary injunction and stay was an interlocutory order that was not appealable. View "Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant, a franchisor of professional cleaning and maintenance services, granted Appellee a franchise in the Omaha, Nebraska area. After Appellant discovered that Appellee was diverting Appellant’s customers to his new business, Appellant terminated its relationship with Appellee. Appellant then filed this lawsuit against Appellee seeking to enforce and receive damages from the breach of the noncompete clause in the franchise agreement. The district court entered judgment for Appellee, concluding that the noncompete clause included an unreasonable restraint on competition. In so ruling, the court refused to sever the offending subpart from the larger noncompete clause. The Supreme Court affirmed after reaffirming its stance against severability of noncompete clauses, holding that the noncompete covenant was invalid and unenforceable and that the district court correctly refused to sever the offending subpart from the larger noncompete clause. View "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah" on Justia Law

Castle Properties, Inc. held a right of first refusal on approximately 2.4 acres of unimproved land owned by the Wasilla Lake Church of the Nazarene (Church). The City of Wasilla offered the Church another parcel of approximately 17 acres in exchange for this property. Having learned of the City’s offer, Castle requested a copy of the purchase and sale agreement memorializing the exchange. The Church, apparently unaware of the right of first refusal, denied this request. Castle then informed the Church that it was exercising its right and submitted a cash offer, which the Church rejected. Castle filed suit, and the superior court found that Castle received adequate notice when it obtained the city ordinance approving the City’s offer and that the Church acted reasonably in rejecting Castle Properties’ competing cash offer. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not clearly err in finding that Castle received adequate notice, that Castle exercised its rights by making a competing offer, and that the Church’s response did not violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. View "Castle Properties, Inc. v. Wasilla Lake Church of the Nazarene" on Justia Law

Customers of a securities firm made claims against that firm based on real estate investments the firm’s broker-dealers recommended. An entity that had an interest in and operated each of the real estate investments filed for bankruptcy, and at least some of the real estate investments became debtors in that bankruptcy proceeding. The appointed examiner in the bankruptcy proceeding found that the entity was engaged in a fraudulent “Ponzi scheme.” When the securities firm applied for professional liability insurance, it disclosed one of the customer claims but not the facts that would support other potential customer claims arising out of investments through the same entity as that involved in the disclosed claim. The insurer refused to defend against undisclosed claims because the policy’s application included an exclusion for nondisclosure of facts that might lead to a claim. The court of appeal affirmed judgment in favor of the insurer: There was no insurance coverage because all of the undisclosed claims arose out of the same events as the disclosed claim. The securities firm was aware of facts and circumstances that might result in a claim or claims being made against it, which awareness it was required to disclose. View "Crown Capital Secs., L.P. v. Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In this putative nationwide class action Plaintiffs claimed that they were deceived into purchasing Defendants’ “natural” cosmetics, which contained allegedly synthetic and artificial ingredients. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws, and common law theories of fraud and quasi-contract. The district court dismissed the quasi-contract cause of action for failure to state a claim and dismissed the state law claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine so that the parties could seek expert guidance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not expressly preempt California’s state law causes of action that create consumer remedies for false or misleading cosmetics labels; (2) although the district court properly invoked the primary jurisdiction doctrine, it erred by dismissing the case rather than staying proceedings while the parties sought guidance from the FDA; and (3) the district court erred in dismissing the quasi-contract cause of action as duplicative of or superfluous to Plaintiffs’ other claims. View "Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc." on Justia Law