Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2006, Respondent Cordillera Fund, LP, purchased shares in Appellant American Ethanol for $3 per share. In 2007, shareholders of American Ethanol sought to merge with AE Biofuels, and notified their shareholders of its intent. Respondent notified American Ethanol of its intent to dissent, and demanded payment for its shares. The merger was approved by the shareholders. When the merged company refused to pay, Respondent filed suit at the district court. Ultimately the issue for the district court to resolve involved the fair value of Respondentâs shares at the time of the merger. Appellants offered respondent $0.15 per share; Respondent maintained the fair value was $3 per share. The parties went to court because neither could agree on the value. The court entered a judgment in favor of Respondent, determining that $3 per share was the fair value. On appeal, Appellants contended that the district court abused its discretion in determining the fair value of the shares. The Supreme Court concluded that appellants did not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion, and affirmed the courtâs ruling in favor of Respondent.

This case returns from the Fifth Circuit to answer one of three certified questions. Appellee Barnes sought to enforce a Working Interest Unit Agreement (WIUA) and Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) for unpaid royalties as a third-party beneficiary or through privity of estate. Doris Barnes sued individually and as the executrix of the estate of her husband, who was an original signatory to a lease that was later assigned to an oil exploration company. The company created a joint venture to begin drilling on lands covered by Barnesâ lease; partner to this joint venture included Appellant Tawes. When the joint venture went bankrupt, Barnes settled her unpaid royalties with the venture. Tawes did not join in the settlement, which gives rise to Barnesâ current claim for the balance of the unpaid royalties. Arguing that because the Bankruptcy Court and Federal District Court concluded that Barnes was a third-party beneficiary to the JOAâs Royalty Provision, Barnes brought suit to enforce, and Tawes appealed. On certification from the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court concluded that Barnes had no right to enforce agreements that gave rise to this suit, finding that the original lease assignment to the exploration company did not extend to Tawes. Finding no theory of recovery, the Court did not address the remaining certified questions.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment dismissing a three-count complaint arising from the renegotiation of certain investment-advisory agreements. The court certified a question to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts as to the circumstances under which that state's business judgment rule could be asserted in response to a shareholder derivative suit under the Massachusetts Business Corporations Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156D, 5.44. Upon the receipt of the answer, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of two of plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to various provisions of the Investment Company Act, 15, U.S.C. 80a-15(a), and Massachusetts state law. Regarding the third claim, a derivative state law claim for breach of fiduciary duty to which the certified question related and as to which the district court granted a motion to dismiss, the court vacated the judgement and remanded with instructions to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, and to rule on that motion, after further discovery if further discovery was warranted.

Plaintiffs sued defendants alleging copyright infringement, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, and several other causes of actions where defendants produced a television series on the Sci-Fi Channel based on plaintiffs' materials. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's contractual claims on the basis that the claims were preempted by copyright law. The court reversed and held that copyright law did not preempt a breach of implied contract claim where plaintiffs alleged a bilateral expectation that they would be compensated for use of the idea, the essential element of a Desny v. Wilder claim that separated it from preempted claims for the use of copyrighted material. The court also held that the breach of confidence claim was not preempted by copyright law where the claim protected the duty of trust or confidential relationship between the parties, an extra element that made it qualitatively different from a copyright claim. The court also held that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to make out a claim for breach of implied contract and breach of confidence.

The Missoula City Counsel, the City of Missoula, and the Mayor, (collectively "City") and Muth-Hilberry, LLC ("developer") appealed a district court determination that found that the City was arbitrary and capricious in approving a zoning and preliminary plat for a subdivision known as Sonata Park located in Rattlesnake Valley, Montana. At issue was whether neighbors, several parties opposed to the subdivision, and the North Duncan Drive Neighborhood Association, Inc. ("Association") had standing. Also at issue was whether the district court erred in striking affidavits filed by the developer and the City in connection with their motions for summary judgment. Further at issue was whether the 1989 Sunshine Agreement between the City and the developer's predecessor in interest superseded the City's growth policy. Finally at issue was whether the City's decision in Sonata Park was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. The court held that the neighbors had standing to sue in their own right and that the Association had associational standing to proceed on behalf of its members. The court also held that any error made by the district court in granting the neighbor's motion to strike the developer's affidavit was harmless. The court further held that the Sunlight Agreement did not supersede the City's growth policy where the Sunlight Agreement could be void ab initio and did not appear to guarantee certain density. The court finally held that substantial compliance was still valid and that a government body must substantially comply with its growth policy in making zoning decisions and that the City's decision to approve Sonata Park was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Plaintiffs Markyl Lee and Promises to Keep, LLC, failed to produce documents in response to a discovery request. They then proceeded to violate two judicial orders compelling production of those documents. After âpatiently affording the plaintiffs chance after chance,â the district court dismissed the case as a sanction against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that â[o]ur justice system has a strong preference for resolving cases on their merits whenever possible, but no one. . .should count on more than three chances to make good a discovery obligation.â The Court affirmed the lower courtâs dismissal of Plaintiffsâ case.

Joe's Concrete and Lumber, Inc. ("Joe's Concrete") sought attorneys fees from Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. ("CWC") after CWC breached its contract with Joe's concrete. At issue was whether the district court properly denied attorneys fees. The court held that Joe's Concrete was entitled to recover its attorneys fees where the attorneys fees were not an element of damages to be proved at trial but were collateral to the merits of the case.

Gregory and Kerry Brown appealed the circuit court's confirmation of an arbitration award that was granted to their former general contractor C-Sculptures. C-Sculptures built the Browns' house. The Browns claimed C-Sculptures was precluded from enforcing a contract between them because the contractor's license limited the contractor to work totaling $100,000. C-Sculptures' final invoice totaled over $800,000, and when the Browns refused to pay, the contractor placed a lien on their property for the unpaid amount. The arbitrator awarded C-Sculptures the money it was owed, and the Browns appealed the arbitrator's award to the circuit court, arguing that the statutory limit on the contractor's license limited payment to $100,000. On review, the Supreme Court found that the arbitrator followed the statutory scheme to make his determination in favor of the contractor. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's confirmation of the arbitrator's award.

Gregory and Kerry Brown appealed the circuit court's confirmation of an arbitration award that was granted to their former general contractor C-Sculptures. C-Sculptures built the Browns' house. The Browns claimed C-Sculptures was precluded from enforcing a contract between them because the contractor's license limited the contractor to work totaling $100,000. C-Sculptures' final invoice totaled over $800,000, and when the Browns refused to pay, the contractor placed a lien on their property for the unpaid amount. The arbitrator awarded C-Sculptures the money it was owed, and the Browns appealed the arbitrator's award to the circuit court, arguing that the statutory limit on the contractor's license limited payment to $100,000. On review, the Supreme Court found that the arbitrator followed the statutory scheme to make his determination in favor of the contractor. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's confirmation of the arbitrator's award.

"The Hamlets" is a subdivision within Crowfield Plantation. Covenants for the subdivision were drafted and recorded in 1991. The covenants created an Architectural Review Board that would enforce the terms of the covenants of the subdivision. Respondents John and Pamela Matsell live in the Hamlets, and their lot abuts a golf course. Their next door neighbors built a fence that covers the majority of the backyard that can be seen from the street that fronts the property, in violation of the covenants. In 2007, the Matsells filed a complaint with the Architectural Review Board to have the Board order the neighbors to remove the fence. When the Board did not comply, the Matsells filed their complaint with the circuit court. The Board argued that it had discretion in interpreting and enforcing the subdivision covenants. The trial court read the "clear language" of the covenants, and found the fence was in violation. The court granted the Matsells summary judgment, and the Board appealed. The Supreme Court found the language of the covenants was plain and unambiguous, and did not allow for a fence that could be seen from the street. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision granting the Matsells summary judgment.