Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Lee Kathrein appealed a judgment piercing the veil of Kathrein Trucking, LLC. In May 2020, West Dakota Oil, Inc. sued Kathrein Trucking, LLC and its owner, Kathrein, for failing to pay for fuel West Dakota provided. West Dakota amended its complaint in January 2021 and alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. A bench trial was held in June 2021. In September 2021, the district court issued a memorandum opinion finding in favor of West Dakota. The court issued its findings of fact and judgment, ordering Kathrein Trucking and Kathrein to pay $63,412.35, jointly and severally. In deciding to pierce the veil of Kathrein Trucking, the district court found Kathrein disregarded the formalities required of limited liability companies, provided West Dakota title to a trailer Kathrein personally owned as security for the company’s debt, charged items at West Dakota that Kathrein personally used, and utilized company assets for personal use. The court found Kathrein operated his company as an alter ego based on a totality of the circumstances and the rubric for factors used to pierce a veil. After reviewing the record, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the evidence did not support findings under the applicable factors or a conclusion the company’s veil should have been pierced. The decision to pierce the veil and hold Kathrein personally liable was reversed. View "West Dakota Oil v. Kathrein Trucking, et al." on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery denied Defendants' motion to dismiss this complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, holding that Plaintiff's claims were ripe and that the complaint stated claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.Plaintiff, a stockholder of a company, brought this lawsuit alleging that Defendants breached the terms of an equity compensation plan, that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, arguing that none of Plaintiff's claims were ripe and that Plaintiff failed to state a claim. The Court of Chancery denied the motion to dismiss, holding that Defendants' attacks on the complaint were unavailing. View "Garfield v. Allen" on Justia Law

NOCO manufactures and sells battery chargers and related products. Although it sells these products itself, NOCO also authorizes resellers if they sign an agreement. NOCO discovered that OJC was selling NOCO’s products on Amazon without authorization. NOCO complained to Amazon that OJC was selling NOCO’s products in violation of Amazon’s policy. Around the same time, another company (Emson) also complained to Amazon about OJC. Amazon asked OJC for proof that it was complying with its policy concerning intellectual property rights. OJC did not provide adequate documents. Amazon temporarily deactivated OJC’s account.OJC claimed that NOCO submitted false complaints, and sued for defamation, tortious interference with a business relationship, and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment rejection of OJC’s claims. To succeed on those claims, OJC must establish that NOCO was the proximate cause of its injury. It cannot do this because three intervening causes broke the causal chain, relieving NOCO of any liability: Emson’s complaint, Amazon’s independent investigation and decision, and OJC’s opportunity to prevent the harm to itself. View "NOCO Co. v. OJ Commerce, LLC" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that when an employer pays premiums to a mutual insurance company to obtain a policy for its employee and the insurance company demutualizes, the employee is entitled to the proceeds from demutualization.Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC) issued professional liability insurance policies to eight medical professionals who were litigants in the cases before the Court of Appeals on appeal. The premiums for the policies were paid by the professionals' employers. After MLMIC demutualized and was acquired by National Indemnity Company, MLMIC sought to distribute $2.502 billion in cash consideration to eligible policyholders pursuant to its plan of conversion. At issue was the employers' claim of legal entitlement to receive the demutualization proceeds. The Supreme Court held that, absent contrary terms in the contract of employment, insurance policy, or separate agreement, the employee, who is the policyholder, is entitled to the proceeds. View "Columbia Memorial Hospital v. Hinds" on Justia Law

Plaintiff buys and collects on delinquent healthcare accounts. Defendant sells such accounts. Business between the two soured, and Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and tortious interference. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims because it believed the disputed portion of the contract was indefinite and unenforceable.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant. The court held that the term “additional Accounts” has enforceable meaning. And because the Forward Flow Amendment was binding, Plaintiff’s claims should not have been dismissed. The court reasoned that the crucial inquiry is whether the term “additional Accounts” rendered the Forward Flow Amendment unenforceable.  The court held that first read in context, the term “additional Accounts” has enforceable meaning. Taken together, the plain meaning of the word “additional,” the contract’s clear architecture, and various settled principles of interpretation reveal that “additional Accounts” refers to all qualifying accounts that accrue quarterly. Second, none of Defendant’s counterarguments were persuasive to the court.   Further, Defendant claimed damages cannot be calculated because, in its view, there is no way to determine the number of accounts they had to offer and Plaintiff was obligated to purchase. Here, Defendant partially performed in a manner consistent with its putative obligation under the Forward Flow Amendment. Such performance may make a contractual remedy appropriate even though uncertainty is not removed. View "Capio Funding v. Rural/Metro Oprt, et al" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant borrowed $350,000 from a husband and wife (“Plaintiff” and “Co-Plaintiff”). The loan was documented by a promissory note which was secured by a deed of trust on real property belonging to Defendant. In 2009, Co-Defendant borrowed $150,000 from Co-Plaintiff. The loan was documented by a promissory note signed by Co-Defendant; the note was not secured by a deed of trust on real property.   In a court trial on Plaintiffs’ action against Defendants for breach of the obligation to repay the loans, the trial court voided the usurious interest rate on both notes and deemed the principal sum of the notes due at maturity. The Second Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s judgment in part and found Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest on the unpaid principal of the 2008 loan, but at the prejudgment interest rate set by article XV, section 1.   The court reasoned that even though Civil Code section 3289, subdivision (b) does not apply to the 2008 loan because it was secured by a deed of trust on real property, Plaintiffs were nonetheless entitled to prejudgment interest on the unpaid principal at the date of maturity at the rate of 7 percent which is the default rate of prejudgment interest provided in article XV, section 1 of the California Constitution, which applies except when a statute provides otherwise. View "Soleimany v. Narimanzadeh" on Justia Law

The Bank of Louisiana (“BOL”) and two of its directors appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaints against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The district court ruled that the complaints rehashed allegations that it had repeatedly held it lacked jurisdiction to consider.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal holding that preclusion principles bar relitigation of the same jurisdictional issue decided in a prior case. The court reasoned that BOL’s new complaints aim to relitigate the same jurisdictional issue decided previously. Once again, the BOL contendsed there is district court jurisdiction over its constitutional claims against the FDIC. That is the same issue the court decided against the BOL in the prior suits. The new complaints thus repeat rather than remedy the jurisdictional problem that warranted the earlier dismissals View "Bank of Louisiana v. FDIC" on Justia Law

The parties entered into a contract related to the construction of a bridge. Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant including those of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and negligent misrepresentation. Based on an arbitration agreement, the parties presented their cases to an arbitrator, which found in Defendant's favor. The arbitrator awarded attorney's fees to Defendant.The district court reversed the arbitrator's award of attorney's fees, finding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in awarding the fees.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order reducing Defendant's arbitration award to exclude attorney's fees. The arbitration agreement at issue was not entirely clear on the attorney's fees issues, but Plaintiff cannot show that “the arbitrator based his decision on some body of thought, or feeling, or policy, or law that is outside the contract." View "Ind. Steel Construction, Inc. v. Lunda Construction Company" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in this complaint against the Trustees of the Beckton Ranch Trust (BRT) seeking declaratory judgment, damages for breach of fiduciary duty, and an accounting, holding that the district court erred in part.In 2018, Waldo Forbes gifted his shares in the BRT to two of his stepsons. The Trustees exercised an option within the trust instrument to reacquire the gifted shares at "fair value." After the beneficiaries purchased their shares Forbes brought this complaint. The district court found that Forbes did not have standing to seek declaratory relief and that the Trustees did not breach their duty of loyalty and had rendered an inadequate accounting. Thereafter, the Trustees filed a new accounting, which the district court found to be sufficient. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) Forbes lacked standing to seek declaratory judgment; (2) with one exception, the Trustees did not breach their duty of loyalty by using a sealed bidding process to appraise the "fair value" of the shares; (3) one Trustee breached her duty of loyalty through impermissible self-dealing; and (4) the annual accounting contained clear, complete, and accurate information as required under common law. View "Forbes v. Forbes" on Justia Law

Sunless sells tanning booths and spray tan solution under the “Mystic Tan” mark. Sunless claims that applying Mystic Tan solution in a Mystic Tan booth results in a “Mystic Tan Experience.” Palm Beach owns and franchises tanning salons. It owns several Mystic Tan-branded booths, and previously bought Mystic Tan-branded tanning solution to use in them; the booths were designed to accept only Mystic Tan solution. Palm Beach jury-rigged the booths so that they will operate with its own distinctly branded spray tan solution, unapproved by Sunless.Sunless sought a preliminary injunction under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1125, arguing that the jury-rigging is likely to confuse consumers into believing they are getting a genuine “Mystic Tan Experience” when they are not. The district court denied the motion, finding that Sunless had failed to show, at this stage of the litigation, that Palm Beach’s salon customers would be confused. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Palm Beach never conceded that it sells a “Mystic Tan Experience” as an indivisible whole. Palm Beach argued there are two products: booths and solutions, each displaying its own distinct mark. Palm Beach continues to use the Mystic Tan-branded booths (which it owns outright), but neither uses nor claims to use Mystic Tan solutions. View "Sunless, Inc. v. Palm Beach Tan, Inc." on Justia Law