Three nonprofit organizations filed a nationwide class action against the United States, alleging that the federal judiciary overcharged the public for access to court records through the PACER system. They claimed the government used PACER fees not only to fund the system itself but also for unrelated expenses, contrary to the statutory limits set by the E-Government Act. The plaintiffs sought refunds for allegedly excessive fees collected between 2010 and 2018.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia oversaw extensive litigation, including class certification and an interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously affirmed that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act and that the government had used PACER fees for unauthorized expenses. After remand, the parties reached a settlement totaling $125 million. The district court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also approved attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, and incentive awards to the class representatives. An objector, Eric Isaacson, challenged the district court’s jurisdiction, the fairness of the settlement, the attorneys’ fees, and the incentive awards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act because each PACER transaction constituted a separate claim, none exceeding the $10,000 jurisdictional limit. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in approving the class settlement, the attorneys’ fees, or the incentive awards. The court also held that incentive awards are not categorically prohibited and are permissible if reasonable, joining the majority of federal circuits on this issue. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "NVLSP v. US " on Justia Law

A former high-level employee left her position at a company after receiving incentive equity agreements that included non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions. She subsequently joined a competitor. The company alleged that she breached those provisions by working for the competitor and that, in the short time since her move, at least five important clients had also moved to the competitor, an unusual loss rate for the business. The employee’s role at her former employer was not confined to a single region, and she was involved in high-level strategic decisions affecting company operations nationwide. The restrictive covenants at issue included an 18-month, nationwide non-compete and were supported by incentive units that would vest over time or upon sale of the company.After the company filed suit, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware denied a temporary restraining order but expedited proceedings. The defendants moved to dismiss. The company amended its complaint with more detailed allegations. The Court of Chancery granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the non-compete was unenforceable due to its breadth and the minimal value of the consideration provided, and that the allegations of breach of the non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions were conclusory. It also dismissed related tortious interference claims.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Chancery improperly drew inferences against the employer at the pleading stage and failed to credit factual allegations supporting the claims. The Supreme Court found it was reasonably conceivable that the non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions could be enforceable, and that the complaint sufficiently alleged breaches. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, limiting its holding to the adequacy of the pleadings and expressing no view on ultimate enforceability. View "Payscale Inc. v. Norman" on Justia Law

A company providing internet and phone services on the Delmarva Peninsula began experiencing significant network interference, which it attributed to a larger telecommunications provider. The company alleged that the interference resulted from the provider operating outside its assigned frequency band, transmitting at excessive power levels, and deploying 5G technology in a manner that impeded its established 4G service. Additionally, the company claimed that the larger provider undermined its business relationships with university partners from whom it leased necessary radio frequencies, by interfering with those relationships and attempting to acquire the relevant FCC licenses.After informal attempts to resolve the interference, the company filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), requesting relief including monetary compensation for necessary network upgrades. The FCC dismissed the complaint, and the company’s request for reconsideration remained pending. Subsequently, the company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, asserting claims under the Communications Act and Maryland state law. The district court dismissed all claims, concluding that the federal claim was either unavailable or barred, the state-law claims were preempted, and the remaining state-law tort claim failed under the applicable legal standard.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the plaintiff’s claim under the Communications Act was barred by the Act’s election-of-remedies provision, as the company had already sought relief from the FCC on the same underlying issues. The court further held that the Communications Act expressly preempted the state-law network interference claims. Finally, the court found that the company had forfeited its only appellate argument regarding the dismissal of its business tort claim, as it had failed to preserve that argument in the district court. Thus, the judgment was affirmed. View "Bloosurf, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Corelle, a company that sold Instapot multifunction cookers, entered into a 2016 master supply agreement (MSA) with Midea, the manufacturer. Under this arrangement, individual purchase orders (POs) were used for each transaction, detailing specific terms such as price and quantity. Each PO typically included Corelle’s own terms, including indemnity provisions. In 2023, Corelle filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, as part of its reorganization plan, sold its appliances business and assigned the MSA to the buyer. However, Corelle sought to retain its indemnification rights for products purchased under completed POs made before the assignment.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Midea’s objection to this arrangement, finding that the POs were severable contracts distinct from the MSA. This meant the indemnification rights related to completed POs remained with Corelle. Midea appealed, contending that the MSA and all related POs formed a single, indivisible contract that should have been assigned in its entirety. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, emphasizing that the structure of the MSA and the parties’ course of dealing supported the divisibility of the POs from the MSA.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the standards applied by the lower courts, the interpretation of the contracts, and the application of 11 U.S.C. § 365(f). The appellate court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding the POs were divisible from the MSA, that Corelle’s retention of indemnification rights did not violate bankruptcy law, and that the lower courts applied the correct standards of review. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "GuangDong Midea v. Unsecured Creditors" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between an investment banker and the firm where he was employed regarding his status and compensation. Initially, the banker joined the firm under an employment offer letter that set out specific compensation terms. Over time, both sides attempted to negotiate changes to this arrangement, exchanging draft agreements and addenda. They met to discuss these terms but left with differing understandings. The banker believed an oral partnership agreement had been reached, while the firm contended only his compensation as an employee was modified. When the banker later made a demand for access to certain records, the firm denied his request, asserting he was not a partner.The case was first addressed by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, which found after trial that no oral partnership agreement had been formed, meaning the banker was not a partner entitled to records access under Delaware law. The court also noted that questions about the banker’s compensation as an employee would be determined in a separate, subsequent action. Following this, the banker filed counterclaims in the ongoing plenary action seeking relief based on his employment letter, but the Court of Chancery dismissed most of these counterclaims. It held that they were barred by collateral estoppel because they relied on facts the court had found against the banker in the earlier proceeding.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed whether collateral estoppel properly barred the banker’s counterclaims about his compensation. The Supreme Court concluded that the earlier factual findings about the banker’s compensation were not essential to the judgment that he was not a partner. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of the banker’s counterclaims relating to his compensation as an employee and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Handler v. Centerview Partners Holdings LP" on Justia Law

Several cousins are shareholders in a closely held family corporation that owns industrial real estate. The dispute centers on the shares held by a trust established by one family member, Sheila, and who has the right to vote those shares after she became incapacitated and her husband resigned as trustee. The parties disagree about the operation of a buy-sell agreement, which the Levins argue restricts the transfer of voting power over the shares, while the Clapkins assert it allows the shares to be controlled by the children as successor cotrustees. The conflict over control of the trust’s shares led to a series of lawsuits between the parties.Previously, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, handling multiple related actions, determined that the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the identity of the trust’s trustees. The probate court subsequently ruled in favor of the Clapkins, confirming them as successor cotrustees of the trust. After this order, the Levins filed a new lawsuit claiming the transfer of voting power violated the buy-sell agreement, while the Clapkins, in response, filed a cross-complaint seeking to enforce their right to vote the trust’s shares and to be registered as the record holders.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the Levins’ special motion to strike most of the claims in the cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion, holding that the claims did not arise from protected litigation activity but rather from the underlying dispute over voting rights and control of the corporation. The court also dismissed the Clapkins’ appeal from the denial of their request for attorneys’ fees, finding the order was not separately appealable. The main holding is that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because the claims arose from unprotected conduct regarding the internal corporate dispute, not from protected petitioning activity. View "Clapkin v. Levin" on Justia Law

A venture capitalist and two scientists, who had previously collaborated on successful biotechnology companies, engaged in discussions and took steps toward forming a new enterprise to develop and commercialize carbon-hydrogen bond activation technology. As these discussions progressed, disagreements arose regarding the scale of initial funding needed. The scientists believed more substantial investment was required than the amount offered by the venture capitalist. Ultimately, the scientists pursued alternative sources of funding, and the parties’ collaboration did not materialize into a finalized business.After this breakdown, the venture capitalist and his company filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of San Diego County against the two scientists, alleging breach of oral and implied joint venture agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit. The scientists moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the scientists on all claims. The court found that any oral or implied joint venture agreement was barred by the statute of frauds, there was no enforceable agreement, and the plaintiffs had not expected compensation directly from the defendants.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the statute of frauds applies to oral or implied joint venture agreements that, by their terms, cannot be performed within one year. The court found no genuine dispute that developing the technology would necessarily take more than one year, rendering the alleged joint venture unenforceable. The breach of fiduciary duty claim failed because it depended on a valid joint venture. The promissory estoppel and quantum meruit claims failed due to the absence of clear and unambiguous promises and because compensation was expected from the venture, not the defendants directly. The judgment was affirmed. View "Clarke v. Yu" on Justia Law

A South Korean video game conglomerate acquired a U.S.-based game studio known for its hit title, Subnautica, in 2021. The acquisition terms included a $500 million upfront payment and a possible $250 million in contingent earnout payments. To secure the studio’s continued creative success, the buyer contractually guaranteed that the founders and CEO would retain operational control and could only be terminated for cause. As the studio prepared to release Subnautica 2, internal projections showed that the game would likely trigger the large earnout payment. Fearing the contract was too generous, the buyer’s leadership sought ways to block the earnout, including consulting an AI chatbot for takeover strategies. The buyer then locked the studio out of its publishing platform, posted critical messages on its website, and fired the founders and CEO, initially claiming a lack of game readiness as cause.After the representative of the former shareholders sued in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, the buyer changed its justification, asserting that the executives had abandoned their roles and improperly downloaded company data. The court found that both the studio’s leadership transitions and the data downloads were transparent, known to, and accepted by the buyer before the terminations. The court also found that the buyer’s new grounds for termination were pretextual and not supported by the evidence.The Court of Chancery held that the buyer breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the key employees without cause and usurping their operational control. As a remedy, the court ordered specific performance: the CEO was reinstated with full operational authority, and the earnout period was equitably extended by the duration of his ouster. Issues regarding potential damages for lost earnout revenue were reserved for a later phase. View "Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Krafton, Inc." on Justia Law

After the Texas Legislature enacted a law banning certain medical treatments for minors for the purpose of gender transition, PFLAG, Inc., a nonprofit organization with Texas members, became involved in litigation challenging the law. During this litigation, PFLAG’s executive director submitted an affidavit describing, among other things, how families sought “alternative avenues to maintain care” for transgender youth in Texas. The Office of the Attorney General, suspecting that some medical providers might be concealing violations of the new law through deceptive billing practices, issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to PFLAG seeking documents underlying the affidavit and related information. PFLAG declined to produce the documents and instead petitioned the 261st Judicial District Court in Travis County to set aside or modify the CID. The Attorney General subsequently narrowed the scope of the CID to exclude identifying information of PFLAG’s members and focused the requests more closely on the affidavit’s content.The district court granted a temporary restraining order and, after a trial, issued a final declaratory judgment and injunction largely protecting PFLAG from producing the requested documents. The district court focused its analysis on the original, broader CID and found that the Attorney General lacked a valid basis to believe PFLAG possessed relevant information. The court also concluded that the CID infringed on constitutional rights and failed to comply with statutory requirements.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the district court erred in analyzing only the original CID and not the revised version. The Supreme Court clarified that the Attorney General’s statutory authority to issue a CID requires only a reasonable belief, not proof, that the recipient may have relevant material. The Court found the Attorney General’s belief reasonable given the content of the affidavit and ruled that PFLAG must produce most responsive documents, subject to privilege and redaction of identifying information. The district court’s order was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. PFLAG, INC." on Justia Law

Tara Grall and her former husband, William Grall, were the sole shareholders of G-Team, P.C., an Alabama professional corporation that had ceased business operations. Amid their divorce proceedings, William initiated a derivative action against Tara, seeking to enforce the corporation's right to sell its real property to pay off mortgage debt. Tara argued that the property could not be sold due to an existing Small Business Administration lien. The trial court ordered the sale of the property and scheduled a hearing to determine the distribution of proceeds and finalize the winding up of G-Team. Tara, representing herself, filed multiple motions, including requests to stay hearings, appear remotely, and recuse the judge, but these were denied.Tara appealed several interlocutory orders to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, describing her appeal as interlocutory and requesting a stay, which was denied. Despite her pending appeal, the trial court conducted a final hearing and entered a purported final judgment on May 1, 2025, winding up G-Team. Tara then appealed that judgment as well. The Court of Civil Appeals transferred both appeals to the Supreme Court of Alabama, citing a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Alabama determined it lacked jurisdiction over both appeals. It held that the first appeal was not from a final judgment nor from an appealable interlocutory order under Rule 4(a)(1), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, and therefore must be dismissed. The second appeal was from a judgment entered while the first appeal was pending, at which point the trial court was divested of jurisdiction; this made the subsequent judgment void and the second appeal also subject to dismissal. Both appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court of Alabama. View "Grall v. Grall" on Justia Law