Contracts
[09/08]
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Univ. Crop Protection Alliance, LLC
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that a pollution exclusion in defendant's insurance policy relieved plaintiff of any obligation to defend or indemnify defendant, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) in
the insurance policy coverage context, a declaratory judgment action is ripe irrespective of whether the underlying litigation is ongoing or resolved; and 2) the underlying complaint made clear the relofted particulates at issue were toxic, and therefore, would qualify as "pollutants" under the policy.
[09/08]
McKissick v. Yuen
In an action against plaintiff's former company and two of its former officers, accusing them of perpetrating a fraud that rendered her stock options in the company worthless, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the parties' separation agreement unambiguously barred plaintiff's claims; and 2) although the separation agreement entitled defendant to recoup the attorney's fees it incurred in defending the suit, the agreement did not permit the company to recover the fees it incurred in prosecuting a counterclaim against plaintiff.
[09/08]
Rafael Rodriguez Barril, Inc. v. Conbraco Indus., Inc.
In a contract dispute, district court's finding that a forum selection clause in the contract was not displaced by Puerto Rico's Sales Representatives Act of 1990, in dismissing the suit is affirmed as, the substantive issues as to choice of law, as well as the merits of the contract termination controversy, are to be resolved in the forum chosen by the parties. Here, the forum selection clause in the agreement fixes North Carolina, and the forum selection clause is not forbidden by Law 21.
[09/07]
Alday v. Raytheon Co.
In an action alleging that defendant breached collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with plaintiffs and violated the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the language of the CBAs made clear that defendant's agreement to pay retiree medical insurance premiums continued beyond the term of the CBAs, even where its agreement to pay non-retired employee premiums did not; 2) defendant's leeway to amend its benefit plans did not allow it to alter the terms of the CBAs under which it agreed to provide company-paid health insurance to retirees; and 3) plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts supporting their claim for punitive and extra-contractual damages.
[09/03]
F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records
In a dispute concerning the percentage of royalties due to plaintiffs under their contracts with defendant in connection with the recordings of the rapper Eminem, judgment in favor of defendant is reversed and an attorney's fees award in its favor is vacated where: 1) a "Masters Licensed" provision unambiguously applies to permanent downloads and mastertones; and 2) thus, the district court should have granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.
[09/03]
Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
[09/03]
SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald
In an appeal arising from the entry of a contempt order against defendant enforcing a settlement agreement with plaintiff, the contempt order is vacated and remanded where, although the parties and the district court likely intended for the district court to retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, a stipulation effectively dismissed the case when it was filed, and thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
[09/02]
Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l. Union Ins. Co.
In an action by one insurer against another seeking $10 million in subrogation proceeds, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff waived certain rights by refusing repeated invitations to participate in subrogation discussions. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, as the excess insurer, plaintiff was entitled to a priority interest in the subrogation proceeds representing insured losses.
[09/02]
Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc.
In a suit for common law trade dress of a French-press coffee maker known as the Chambord, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, Article 4 of the parties' contract is clear and precise as it allows defendant to sell the coffee maker design anywhere except France - provided that it does not use the Chambord or Melior names and does not use plaintiff's supply channels for four years.
[09/02]
Atlantic Nat'l Trust LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.
In an action seeking insurance proceeds arising from a fire, defendants' appeal from the grant of plaintiff's motion to remand is dismissed where the court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a federal district court order remanding a case to state court based on a ground colorably characterized as a "defect" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c).
[09/01]
US ex rel. SNAPP v. Ford Motor Co.
District court's denial of plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint concluding that the proposed amended complaint, which included a list of contracts that the government allegedly entered into as a result of fraudulent representations on the part of Ford, did not allege with sufficient particularity the existence of a "claim" as defined by the False Claims Act (FCA), is affirmed as, because no holding of Bledsoe II affected the circuit's law on the questions at issue before the district court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that its original rationale for not permitting plaintiff to file its second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 59(e) still obtained and that permitting such a filing was not otherwise "required in order to prevent an injustice."
[09/01]
Smith v. Selma Cmty. Hosp.
In plaintiff's successful suit against a hospital to have his hospital privileges reinstated, trial court's denial of his motion for attorney fees is reversed and remanded where: 1) when the conditions contained in section 809.9 are shown, the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees; 2) the statutory phrase "frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith," set forth separate grounds for an award of attorney fees; 3) the terms "frivolous," "unreasonable" and "without foundation" are objective standards that might overlap; 4) the term "bad faith" is a subjective standard concerned with a defendant's motives for defending or litigating a lawsuit; and 5) because a defendant's subjective state of mind is usually proven by circumstantial evidence, a defendant's prelitigaton conduct and postlitigation conduct are relevant evidence from which inferences can be drawn regarding its motives in defending or litigating a lawsuit.
[09/01]
Hinerfeld-Ward, Inc. v. Lipian
In a general contractor's suit against homeowners for breach of oral contract, quantum meruit, wrongful withholding of progress payments, and related cause of action, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as, the oral contract was enforceable and the contractor is entitled to attorney fees for the homeowners' delay in making progress payments.
[08/31]
Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
In an employer's suit against its insurer for refusing to tender defense in an underlying suit under its workers' compensation and employer liability policy, judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer is affirmed as, because defendant was, by virtue of Indiana law, a joint employer, insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the reasonable expense of defendant's getting itself dismissed from the tort suit. However, because the defendant is not claiming that insurer refused to pay that amount, but rather, it is complaining that the insurer breached its duty to defend by failing to advise defendant that it's law firm was not defending the suit properly, the insurer had no duty to provide its insured's lawyers with legal advice.
[08/31]
Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).