In this case arising from the internal breakdown and judicial dissolution of H&N Holdings, LLC the Supreme Court reversed the orders of the district court ordering, sua sponte, the dissolution of H&N, holding that the district court erred.H&N was owned by Dianne Nelson and formerly managed by Vicki's husband, Burke Hills. Dianne filed a lawsuit seeking the dissolution of H&N and the removal of Burke as manager. In lieu of dissolution, H&N and Vicki filed elections to purchase Dianne's membership interest in H&N. The district court dismissed the elections and ordered H&N's dissolution, the removal of Burke as manager, and the appointment of a receiver to liquidate H&N's assets. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) H&N made its election as a matter of right, and the district court lacked the power to dismiss the election and order the dissolution of H&N; and (2) the district court violated Vicki's due process rights by ordering H&N's dissolution and Burke's removal as manager without notice or an opportunity to be heard. View "Nelson v. Hills" on Justia Law

MDK, a Bolivian entity, filed suit against Proplant, a Texas-based corporation under both breach of contract and tort theories. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Proplant, concluding that MDK did not meet the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) standard for deferring summary judgment, and thus the district court did not err by ruling on Proplant's summary judgment motion before the parties had completed discovery. In this case, MDK's opening brief failed to adequately present its arguments that Proplant's summary judgment motion and the district court's summary judgment order were "legally deficient." Therefore, MDK has waived these issues.Finally, the court rejected MDK's contention that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on MDK's two breach of contract claims. In regard to the first claim, the court concluded that MDK has not pointed to any evidence suggesting that it did in fact execute the October Document. In regard to the second claim, the court concluded that MDK failed to meet its burden of demonstrating by competent evidence that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether YPFB awarded Proplant the O&M contract. View "MDK Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada v. Proplant Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the district court's judgment concluding that Tennis Sanitation, LLC breached the contract between the parties and that, as a result of the breach, Vermillion State Bank suffered $1.92 million in damages, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Tennis repudiated an alleged oral contract it negotiated with Vermillion for its purchase of certain assets, including garbage trucks and customer routes, of a trash collection business in bankruptcy. After Tennis's repudiation, Vermillion sold the assets to another company at a significantly lower price. Vermillion then sued Tennis for breach of contract. The district court entered judgment for Vermillion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that hybrid contract involving goods and non-goods should be interpreted based on the predominant purpose of the contract. View "Vermillion State Bank v. Tennis Sanitation, LLC" on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery denied the petition filed by Synergy management Group LLC seeking to have its president appointed as a custodian for Forum Mobile, Inc., a defunct Delaware corporation, holding that Synergy was not entitled to the petition.Synergy sought to revive Forum as a blank check company and, through a reverse merger, begin a new business that could access the public markets. In its petition, Synergy relied on section 226(a)(3) of the Delaware General Corporation Law providing that the Court of Chancery may, upon the application of any stockholder, appoint a custodian for a corporation when the corporation has abandoned its business and failed to take timely steps to dissolve, liquidate, or distribute its assets. The Court of Chancery denied the petition, holding that section 226(b) does not contemplate that a custodian appointed under section 226(a)(3) could revivify the corporation. View "In re Forum Mobile, Inc." on Justia Law

McDonald filed a putative class action, alleging that her former employer, Bronzeville, collected, used, and stored sensitive biometric data from employees in a fingerprint timekeeping system, violating the Biometric Information Privacy Act,740 ILCS 14/1. McDonald alleged that she was never provided with nor signed a release and had never been informed of the purposes or length of time for which her biometric information was stored. Bronzeville argued that the claims were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 305/1, the exclusive remedy for accidental injuries transpiring in the workplace, and that an employee has no common-law or statutory right to recover civil damages from an employer for injuries incurred in the course of her employment.The circuit court rejected Bronzeville’s argument, reasoning that privacy rights are neither a psychological nor physical injury and not compensable under the Compensation Act. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court concluded that an employee's claim against an employer for liquidated damages under the Privacy Act, available without further compensable actual damages being alleged or sustained and intended to have a preventative and deterrent effect, is not the type of injury that categorically fits within the purview of the Compensation Act, a remedial statute designed to provide financial protection for workers that have sustained an actual injury. View "McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC" on Justia Law

In this appeal concerning the conditions under which a member of a manager-managed limited liability company (LLC) is permitted to inspect the LLC's books and records the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that Defendant's refusal to disclose certain information to Plaintiffs violated both Conn. Gen. Stat. 34-255i and Defendant's operating agreement, holding that there was no error.At issue was whether a member seeking information for the purpose of ascertaining whether mismanagement occurred must produce credible proof that mismanagement may have occurred as a condition for exercising that member's statutory inspection right. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of the substitute plaintiffs in this case, holding that the court did not err in (1) concluding that there is no credible proof of mismanagement requirement in section 34-255i; and (2) failing to apply other statutory requirements. View "Benjamin v. Island Management, LLC" on Justia Law

ATC purchased a commercial general liability insurance policy from Westchester, which provided coverage against liability incurred because of “advertising,” a defined term that included trade dress infringement. BizBox sued ATC for breach of contract and interference with its business expectancies, alleging that ATC manufactured and sold a knock-off trailer using BizBox’s design. ATC sought a declaratory judgment that Westchester owed it a duty to defend and a duty to indemnify. Westchester argued that BizBox’s underlying suit was not covered under the insurance policy because BizBox did not allege, in that litigation, an infringement of its trade dress in ATC’s advertising.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. BizBox’s complaint never alleged a trade dress infringement claim against ATC nor an advertising injury and could not be construed to plausibly allege a trade dress infringement claim against ATC. BizBox alleged no facts that can plausibly be construed to show that it asserted that an advertising injury occurred. Westchester, therefore, has no duty to defend or indemnify ATC under the “personal and advertising injury” provision of the Policy. View "Aluminum Trailer Co. v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co" on Justia Law

Owen transferred his ownership interests in real estate and construction-related firms he had founded to a new entity, Blue Mountain, as part of a joint venture with Acolyte. Acolyte acquired a 50 percent ownership interest in Blue Mountain; Owen became the company’s CEO. In his employment contract, Owen agreed to a covenant barring him from soliciting Blue Mountain’s customers for a three-year period following the termination of his employment. Years later, Owen was terminated for cause. Months later, Owen established a new construction company to compete with Blue Mountain. He sent letters to building and construction companies, including Blue Mountain customers. describing this new venture. Blue Mountain obtained injunctions, prohibiting Owen from soliciting Blue Mountain’s customers, and summary adjudication of its breach of contract claim.The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Owen’s arguments that the nonsolicitation covenant was unenforceable because it did not meet the requirements of Business and Professions Code section 16601, an exemption to section 16600’s general ban on non-competition covenants and that his communications with Blue Mountain’s customers were not solicitations as a matter of law. Under section 16601, Owen disposed of all of his ownership interest while concurrently agreeing to refrain from carrying on a similar business within a specified geographic area in which the business sold. The court upheld an award to Blue Mountain of approximately $600,000 in attorney fees as the prevailing party. View "Blue Mountain Enterprises, LLC v. Owen" on Justia Law

Yelp filed suit seeking an injunction under the unfair competition law and the false advertising law to prevent Yelp from touting the accuracy and efficacy of its filter. The trial court excluded Multiversal's principal, James Demetriades, from a portion of the trial and denied Multiversal's motion to compel access to Yelp's source code.The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the trial court was within its discretion to find that although Yelp's source code might be helpful in analyzing the challenged statements, it was not necessary. In this case, Multiversal offers no explanation as to why this data is relevant or would have been used to establish the falsity of the challenged statements. The court also concluded that Multiversal was represented by counsel and afforded the right to have its expert present during the portion of trial from which Demetriades was excluded, accommodations the Supreme Court has deemed sufficient in civil proceedings. Furthermore, the trial court could reasonably have found that excluding Demetriades from a limited portion of the trial while safeguarding Multiversal's right to have other representatives present, measures similar to the protective order entered during discovery, gave Multiversal notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. The court stated that due process required no more, and that Multiversal identifies no prejudice resulting from this exclusion. View "Multiversal Enterprises-Mammoth Properties, LLC v. Yelp, Inc." on Justia Law

Melendez purchased a used 2015 Toyota from Southgate under a retail installment sales contract. Southgate assigned the contract to Westlake. Weeks later, Melendez sent a notice alleging Southgate violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and demanded rescission, restitution, and an injunction. Melendez later sued Southgate and Westlake, alleging violations of the CLRA, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code 1632 (requiring translation of contracts negotiated primarily in Spanish), the unfair competition law, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Westlake assigned the contract back to Southgate. Default was entered against Southgate. Westlake agreed to pay $6,204.68 ($2,500 down payment and $3,704.68 Melendez paid in monthly payments). Melendez would have no further obligations under the contract.The parties agreed Melendez could seek attorney fees, costs, expenses, and prejudgment interest. Westlake was entitled to assert all available defenses, “including the defense that no fees at all should be awarded against it as a Holder” The FTC’s “holder rule” makes the holder of a consumer credit contract subject to all claims the debtor could assert against the seller of the goods or services but caps the debtor’s recovery from the holder to the amount paid by the debtor under the contract. The trial court awarded attorney fees ($115,987.50), prejudgment interest ($2,956.62), and costs ($14,295.63) jointly and severally against Westlake, Southgate, and other defendants. The court of appeal affirmed. The limitation does not preclude the recovery of attorney fees, costs, nonstatutory costs, or prejudgment interest. View "Melendez v. Westlake Services, Inc." on Justia Law