Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

FTR has constructed buildings for public entities for 15 years. In 1999, FTR submitted the winning bid of $7.345 million to construct a District school. During construction, FTR submitted approximately 150 proposed change orders (PCO). FTR claimed some were necessary because the District’s plans were inadequate or misleading. The District denied most of the PCOs on the grounds that the work was covered under the basic contract, the amounts claimed were excessive, or that a PCO was not timely under the contract. Construction was completed in 2001. Public Contract Code 7107 allows a public entity to withhold funds due a contractor when there are liens on the property or a good faith dispute concerning whether the work was properly performed. The court of appeal held that the trial court properly assessed penalties against District because it did not timely release retained funds; properly rejected the District's action under the False Claims Act, Government Code 12650; and properly assessed prejudgment interest. The court erred in its interpretation of a contract provision imposing time limitations to submit claims for extra work as requiring a showing of prejudice and erred in awarding fees for work not solely related to FTR's section 7107 cause of action. View "FTR Int'l, Inc. v. Rio Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission and Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Association alleged that defendants, who promoted and staged music events at the Coliseum and related venues, paid an employee of the Commission for services related to those music events and that such payments were inappropriate and not disclosed to plaintiffs. The trial court dismissed. The court of appeal reversed in part, finding that the plaintiffs adequately stated causes of action under the conflicts of interest prohibition in Government Code section 1090, conspiracy to defraud, violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and accounting. The court upheld dismissal of claims of violation of the False Claims Act, fraud, and negligence. View "Los Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Insomniac, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a dispute over ownership of parking spaces situated between The Falls Homeowners Association (“The Falls”) and Falls Garden Condominium Association (“Falls Garden”). The Falls and Falls Garden executed a letter of intent in settlement of litigation. After problems arose between the parties, The Falls filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement to implement the letter of intent. The circuit court judge granted The Falls’s motion. The court ordered The Falls to prepare a settlement agreement and a release of all claims and ordered Falls Garden to execute the settlement agreement. On appeal, Falls Garden argued that the Letter of Intent was not binding because the parties did not intend to be bound and because the letter did not contain all material terms. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded, holding (1) the letter of intent was an enforceable contract to which the parties intended to be bound; and (2) because the letter of intent was unambiguous and constituted an enforceable contract, the trial judge did not err in failing to hold a plenary hearing on the merits of the motion to enforce settlement agreement. View "Falls Garden Condo. Ass’n v. Falls Homeowners Ass’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a young lawyer associate, filed a complaint against Defendants, his former Virginia-based law firm employer and its principal, claiming a violation of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”) and seeking $1,974 in unpaid wages, treble damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. The trial judge concluded that the employment contract was a “Virginia” contract, and therefore, Plaintiff could not bring a suit in Maryland under the MWPCL. The circuit court reversed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s MWPCL claim. Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the mere fact that the parties in this case entered into a “Virginia” employment contract did not prohibit maintenance of Plaintiff’s claims under the MWPCL. Remanded. View "Cunningham v. Feinberg" on Justia Law

In 2009, Mosell Equities filed this action against Berryhill & Company and Mr. and Mrs. Berryhill (collectively "Berryhill"). The complaint alleged that Mosell Equities had loaned money to Berryhill and that it had failed to repay the loans. The case was tried to a jury in September 2009. During the trial, Messrs. Mosell and Berryhill provided widely divergent testimony regarding their relationship, whether the checks were actually loans, and what had transpired. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Berryhill on the claims regarding the alleged loans. Mosell Equities filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The district court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to part of a claim for relief, and the Supreme Court reversed that order on appeal. On remand, the district court granted Mosell Equities a new trial, and Berryhill appealed. After review, the Supreme Court reversed: by granting the motion for a new trial in order to enable Mosell Equities to try the case on a theory it did not raise in the first trial, the district court abused its discretion by failing to act consistently with the applicable legal standards. The district court was directed to enter judgment consistent with the original jury verdict. View "Mosell Equities, LLC v. Berryhill & Co., Inc" on Justia Law

Textron, Inc. appealed a Superior Court judgment which held that the company was not entitled to reimbursement from its former fastening manufacturing business, now known as Acument Global Technologies, Inc. for paying certain pre-closing contingent liabilities in the United States. The Superior Court's opinion centered on the meaning of a "tax benefit offset" provision in the parties' Purchase Agreement under which Acument was required to reimburse Textron if Acument received a "tax benefit" related to the contingent liabilities. Textron argued that even if the tax benefit had to be actual rather than merely hypothetical, the Superior Court erred by not finding that Acument actually enjoyed the right to tax benefits. Textron contended that its payment of the pre-closing liabilities constituted a tax benefit because the payments automatically increase Acument's tax basis under U.S. tax law. The Supreme Court disagreed after its review of the appeal: the Agreement, taken as a whole, guaranteed that Acument would not receive a net tax benefit simply because Textron made a required indemnification payment. Accordingly, Textron's argument that Acument has received a tax benefit triggering Textron's right to reimbursement was without merit, as the total effect of Textron's payments is tax-neutral. Similarly, Textron's second and related claim that the Superior Court erred in "redefining" the required tax benefit to mean only a "deduction" rather than any "reduction" was meritless. The therefore affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. View "Textron v. Acument Global Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved the dispute over settlement agreements between AstraZeneca, which sells a heartburn drug called Nexium, and three generic drug companies that sought to market generic forms of Nexium. The named plaintiffs sued AstraZeneca and the three drug companies, alleging that the settlement agreements constituted unlawful agreements not to compete. Plaintiffs sought class certification for a class of third-party payors and individual consumers. The district court certified a class. Defendants appealed. After briefing, oral argument, and submission of this case, however, Defendants filed a voluntary motion to dismiss the interlocutory appeal. The First Circuit denied the motion to dismiss, holding (1) although some of the underlying issues in this case had been settled and a jury had reached a verdict on some others, the case was not moot; (2) a final draft of the Court’s opinion had already been prepared; and (3) Defendants may have been acting strategically by seeking to dismiss the interlocutory appeal. View "In re Nexium Antitrust Litig." on Justia Law

An adult passenger in a car was injured in a single-car accident. The passenger and his family brought suit against the vehicle’s unlicensed minor driver, the minor’s mother, the owner of the car, the insurance policy holder, the insurer, and the insurance adjuster who handled the claims arising from the accident. The passenger’s father attempted to raise a contractual interference claim, but the superior court concluded that the complaint did not state such a claim on his behalf. The superior court dismissed the father’s only other claim (intentional infliction of emotional distress), removed the father’s name from the case caption, and ordered the father to cease filing pleadings on behalf of other parties. After the superior court judge dismissed him from the action, the passenger’s father attempted to file a first amended complaint, which expressly stated his contractual interference claim on the theory that he was a third-party beneficiary of the contracts between his son and his son’s doctors. But the superior court denied the father leave to amend the complaint because the father had already been dismissed from the case. Following a settlement among all of the other plaintiffs and defendants (which the father did not join) the superior court granted final judgment to the insurer. The insurer moved for attorney’s fees against the father under Alaska Civil Rule 82, but the father never responded to that motion. The superior court granted the award without soliciting a response from the father, and the father appealed. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order dismissing the father’s claims and denying leave to amend the complaint because the proposed first amended complaint was futile. But because the superior court had barred the father from filing any further pleadings in the case and had removed his name from the caption, the superior court had a responsibility to inform the self-represented father that he was permitted to file an opposition to the motion for attorney’s fees. Therefore, the Court vacated the fee award and remanded the case to the superior court to afford the father an opportunity to respond to the insurer’s motion for reasonable attorney’s fees. View "Bush v. Elkins" on Justia Law

The Fergusons offered to sell their attorney, Yaspan, an interest in a London flat they owned. At Yaspan’s suggestion, the Fergusons hired independent counsel and the parties exchanged five drafts before signing a written agreement in 1995. This agreement enabled the Fergusons to recover nearly all of their original purchase price for the flat and still own half of it. Both the Fergusons and the Yaspans wanted to be partners with each other and not each others’ children, so they agreed that whichever couple outlived the other would have the right to buy out the deceased couple’s interest before that interest could pass to anyone else. The Fergusons were then 70 and 68 years old; the Yaspans were 49 and 47. The trial court concluded that Mrs. Ferguson’s 2011 petition to set aside the agreement as a product of Yaspan’s undue influence was untimely and without merit. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the trial court erred by looking at the fairness of the Agreement as a whole rather than focusing on terms Ferguson identified as unfair, and giving insufficient weight to the statistical likelihood that the buyout provision would favor the Yaspans. View "Ferguson v. Yaspan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff contracted to sell Defendants certain real property. The contract provided that Plaintiff would retain ownership of a sixty-foot wide strip of property to provide access to her remaining property, but the warranty deed failed to include the reservation. When it became difficult for Plaintiff to access her property due to improvements on the purchased real property, Plaintiff sued Defendants, alleging, among other claims that were subsequently dismissed, breach of contract. The trial court ruled for Plaintiff on the breach of contract claim and awarded her $650,000 in damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the gravamen of Plaintiff’s prevailing claim was injury to real property, and therefore, the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to “actions for injuries to personal or real property.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff’s claim was not barred by the three-year statute of limitations because the gravamen of Plaintiff’s prevailing claim was breach of contract, to which the six-year statute of limitations for “actions on contracts not otherwise expressly provided for” applied. View "Benz-Elliott v. Barrett Enters., LP" on Justia Law