Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Cobra was a prequalified vendor of information technology goods and services to the city. In 1999-2000, Cobra submitted invoices based on invoices submitted by its subcontractor, Monarch. Monarch had not performed the work, but was a sham corporation run by Armstrong, then-manager of information technology for a city agency. The city paid the invoices. After uncovering another scheme involving Armstrong and a different vendor, the city received complaints that Cobra had not paid subcontractors for work for which the city had paid Cobra. Cobra did not submit to an audit request. The City Attorney had represented Cobra on matters including city contracts while in private practice. Although he had personally been screened from matters related to Cobra, the court ordered the city to retain independent counsel, but stayed proceedings pending appeal. The California Supreme Court affirmed the disqualification. A jury returned verdicts against Cobra and rejected all counterclaims. The court of appeal held that Cobra waived appeal of its motion to preclude the city from using evidence procured with the participation of the City Attorney; reversed as to intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the false claims acts; and remanded for a new trial limited to those claims. View "City & Cnty, of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Pacific Corporate Group Holdings, LLC (PCGH) sued one of its former employees, Thomas Keck, seeking to collect on a promissory note. Keck defended against the action by claiming that any money that he owed PCGH was offset by monies that PCGH owed him. Keck also filed a cross-complaint against PCGH seeking damages for unpaid bonus and severance payments that he claimed were due to him pursuant to two employment agreements. In a special verdict, the jury found that PCGH owed Keck $270,547.95 under the terms of a 2006 employment agreement. PCGH filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or for new trial on the ground that there was no substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that the parties entered into the 2006 Agreement. The trial court denied PCGH's motion. Keck filed a motion for additur, or in the alternative, for a new trial on damages, on the ground that the jury had awarded inadequate damages in light of the bonus and severance provisions in the 2006 Agreement. The trial court granted Keck's motion, and issued an additur and conditional order granting a new trial on damages. PCGH refused to consent to the additur, and thus, the trial court's order directing a new trial on damages became effective. Both parties filed motions for attorney fees, which the court denied. PCGH filed two appeals seeking reversal of the judgment: the trial court's order denying its motion for new trial and JNOV; and the trial court's order granting Keck's motion for additur, or, in the alternative, a new trial on damages; and the trial court's order denying its motion for attorney fees. Keck appealed the trial court's order denying his motion for attorney fees. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court's order granting a new trial on damages resulted in a vacatur of the underlying judgment, and therefore, the Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to consider PCGH's appeals, the trial court's order denying its motion for new trial, and the trial court's order denying attorney fees. Furthermore, the Court concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to consider Keck's appeal of the trial court's order denying attorney fees. The Court affirmed both the trial court's order denying PCGH's motion for JNOV and the trial court's order granting Keck's motion for additur, or in the alternative, a new trial on damages. The case was remanded back to the trial court with directions to conduct a new trial on damages and any other necessary proceedings. View "Pacific Corporate Group Holdings v. Keck" on Justia Law

This appeal arose over a contract dispute between a yacht owner, an independent contractor hired to paint the yachts, and an unpaid paint supplier. The owner challenged a lien the unpaid paint supplier established and enforced on two multimilliondollar yachts under construction at the owner’s Gulfport shipyard. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the owner on a finding that privity did not exist between the owner and the unpaid paint supplier. View "In RE: Lien against M/Y Areti and M/Y Lady Linda: Trinity Yachts, LLC" on Justia Law

Clint Bowyer, a North Carolina resident, was a professional race car driver for NASCAR. Appellant was also a motorcycle enthusiast who often attended the motorcycle rallies in Sturgis, South Dakota. Kustom Cycles, Inc., a South Dakota corporation, agreed to customize a motorcycle for Bowyer. After Kustom Cycles delivered the motorcycle to Bowyer, it sent Bowyer a bill for the work in the amount of $30,788. Bowyer refused to pay the bill, insisting that the owner of the corporation proposed, and Bowyer performed, compensation in the form of promotions, endorsements, and special access to NASCAR events. Kustom Cycles filed a complaint against Bowyer for payment of the bill. Bowyer moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bowyer’s minimal contacts with South Dakota did not meet the “minimum contacts” required to satisfy the Due Process Clause, and Kustom Cycles did not meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over Bowyer. View "Kustom Cycles, Inc. v. Bowyer" on Justia Law

Terry and Cindy Leonhardt sued Terry’s father, Delbert Leonhardt, for specific performance of an oral lease and right of first refusal. The Leonhardts alleged that they had entered into an oral lease with Delbert whereby they would have the right to lease Delbert’s farmland during the lifetime of Delbert and his wife and that Delbert orally promised them a right of first refusal to purchase the farmland after he and his wife died. The Leonhardts claimed that Delbert breached the agreements when he gave Terry notice of his intent to terminate the Leonardts’ lease. On remand, the circuit court entered judgment against the Leonhardts, concluding that no credible evidence existed to support the existence of a lifetime lease or right of first refusal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it ruled that the Leonhardts failed to meet their burden of proof that a lifetime lease and right of first refusal existed. View "Leonhardt v. Leonhardt" on Justia Law

The Avakians purchased a house with a loan secured by a properly executed deed of trust. The property was their homestead, where they lived together. Citibank refinanced the loan. Unlike the original loan, the refinancing note only listed Norair as the debtor. Citibank required that the Avakians execute another deed of trust. Norair signed the Citibank deed of trust. The next day, Burnette signed an identical deed of trust. The deeds of trust did not mention each other, and did not refer to signature of counterpart documents. Citibank recorded them as separate instruments. The Avakians received a loan modification. Around the time of Norair’s death, Burnette received notice that Citibank was taking steps to foreclose. After Norair’s death, Burnette sought a declaratory judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Burnette, finding that, because the two were living together when they signed the Citibank deeds of trust, the instruments were invalid. The Fifth Circuit reversed. Under Mississippi law, a deed of trust on a homestead is void if it is not signed by both spouses, but the Mississippi Supreme Court would likely hold that a valid deed of trust is created when husband and wife contemporaneously sign separate, identical instruments. View "Avakian v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

Two companies, Derma Pen, LLC and 4EverYoung, entered a sales distribution agreement. Under the agreement, Derma Pen, LLC obtained the exclusive right to use the DermaPen trademark in the United States. 4EverYoung had a contractual right of first refusal, allowing purchase of Derma Pen, LLC’s U.S. trademark rights upon termination of the distribution agreement. Derma Pen, LLC terminated the agreement, and 4EverYoung wanted to exercise its contractual right of first refusal. The parties reached an impasse, and 4EverYoung started using the DermaPen trademark in the United States. Derma Pen, LLC sued and requested a preliminary injunction to prevent 4EverYoung’s use of the trademark. The district court declined the request, concluding that 4EverYoung was likely to prevail. This appeal to the Tenth Circuit followed, presenting the question: whether Derma Pen, LLC was likely to prevail on its claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition by proving a protectable interest in the trademark. The Court concluded Derma Pen, LLC was likely to prevail by satisfying this element. The district court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Derma Pen v. 4EverYoung Limited" on Justia Law

The issue at the heart of this appeal to the Tenth Circuit centered on indemnity stemming from a promise by Martin K. Eby Construction Company’s predecessor to build a water pipeline. Eby engaged another company (the predecessor to Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC), promising to indemnify claims resulting from Eby’s work. While building the water pipeline, Eby accidentally hit a methanol pipeline, causing a leak. At the time, no one knew about the leak. It was discovered over two decades later, and the owner of the methanol pipeline had to pay for the cleanup. The owner of the methanol pipeline sued to recover the expenses from Kellogg and Eby. Kellogg and Eby prevailed, but Kellogg incurred over $2 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. Kellogg invoked Eby’s indemnity promise, suing Eby and its liability insurer, Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. The district court granted summary judgment to Eby and Travelers, leading Kellogg to appeal. To resolve the Kellogg-Eby portion of the appeal, the Tenth Circuit focused on the enforceability of Eby’s promise of indemnity: the promise was broad enough to cover the pipeline owner’s claims against Kellogg for its inaction after Eby caused the leak, but the indemnity clause was not conspicuous; thus, it was unenforceable. The Kellogg-Travelers appeal turned on Kellogg’s argument that Travelers’ insurance policy covered liabilities assumed by its insured (Eby). The Tenth Circuit concluded that because the indemnity clause was unenforceable, it is as if Eby never agreed to assume Kellogg’s liabilities. In the absence of Eby’s assumption of Kellogg’s liabilities, Travelers did not insure Kellogg. Accordingly, Kellogg was not entitled to indemnity from Eby or insurance coverage from Travelers, and Eby and Travelers were entitled to summary judgment. View "Martin K. Eby Construction v. OneBeacon Insurance" on Justia Law

In 2006, Robert and Teresa James brought a lot in a rural subdivision. At the time of the purchase, Chicago Title Insurance Company issued a title insurance policy that insured against loss or damage by reason of “lack of right of access to and from the land.” In 2013, the Jameses sued Chicago Title, contending that the title insurance policy required Chicago Title to provide them “legal” access to their lot. The district court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, concluding that the Jameses failed to establish that the title insurance policy entitled them to “legal access” to their lot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted judgment to Chicago Title on the Jameses’ claim, under the title insurance policy, that they lacked a right of access to their real property, as the language of the policy insured against loss from not having “a right” of access, and the Jameses clearly had a right of access when they bought the lot. View "James v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Colorado Golf Club Holding Company LLC (CGC Holding), Harlem Algonquin LLC and James Medick proposed certification of a class action suit. They alleged a group of lenders conspired to create a fraudulent scheme to obtain non-refundable up-front fees in return for loan commitments , and misrepresented their ability and their objective to make good on the promises to meet certain financing obligations as part of a scheme to entice borrowers to pay the up-front fees. The class intended to offer generalized proof that the lenders concealed the financial history of Sandy Hutchens, the principal defendant, and his use of pseudonyms, to preserve the superficial integrity of the operation. The borrowers argued that had they known about this pretense, no putative class member would have taken part in the financial transactions that caused each to lose its up-front fees, amounting to millions of dollars of cumulative losses. The ultimate issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether the class could pursue claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In opposing the claims, the lenders argued that each class member would have to demonstrate that it relied on the lenders’ misrepresentations or omissions to satisfy RICO’s causation element, making a single trial unwieldy and unworkable. The Tenth Circuit held that the lenders were wrong in this respect: RICO class-action plaintiffs are not entitled to an evidentiary presumption of a factual element of a claim. The Court agreed with the district court that a class could be certified in this context. Plaintiffs' theory sufficiently allayed any concerns about Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirement that common issues predominate over those idiosyncratic to individual class members. The Tenth Circuit affirmed certification of the class, but reversed the district court with regard to certification decision as to the lenders’ law firm and lawyers, Broad and Cassel, Ronald Gache and Carl Romano. Because several claims were not properly before the Court in this interlocutory appeal, the Court declined to address: (1) whether plaintiffs’ claims constituted an impermissible extraterritorial application of RICO; (2) whether the plaintiffs could prove proximate cause; or (3) whether the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over certain defendants. View "CGC Holding v. Gache" on Justia Law