Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado certified a question of Colorado law to the Colorado Supreme Court. Defendant Ray Domenico Farms, Inc. grew organic vegetables. Plaintiffs were three year-round and four seasonal migrant workers who had been previously employed by Domenico Farms from as far back as 1992. All Plaintiffs were paid by the hour, and alleged they never received overtime pay during their employment with Domenico Farms. While agricultural workers were generally exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) overtime requirements, Plaintiffs alleged they performed nonagricultural tasks in weeks in which they worked more than forty hours, thus entitling them to overtime wages under FLSA for those weeks. The certified question from the federal court pertained to how far back in time a terminated employee’s unpaid wage claims could reach under the Colorado Wage Claim Act, sections 8-4-101 to -123, C.R.S. (2017). Specifically, the certified question asked whether the statute permitted a terminated employee to sue for wages or compensation that went unpaid at any time during the employee’s employment, even when the statute of limitations had run on the cause of action the employee could have brought for those unpaid wages under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-4-103(1)(a). The Supreme Court held that under the plain language of section 109, an employee could seek any wages or compensation that were unpaid at the time of termination; however, the right to seek such wages or compensation was subject to the statute of limitations. That statute of limitations begins to run when the wages or compensation first become due and payable and thus limits a terminated employee to claims for the two (or three) years immediately preceding termination. Thus, the Court answered the certified question in the negative. View "Hernandez v. Ray Domenico Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

The 2016 amendment to Corporations Code section 17707.06 applied to a certificate of cancellation filed by plaintiff in 2014. The Court of Appeal held that plaintiff concealed the certificate of cancellation and then unsuccessfully challenged its authenticity, prolonging the proceedings into 2016 when the changes to section 17707.06 took effect. The court reasoned that, had plaintiff been forthcoming, the case would have been dismissed under the prior law. In this case, it would be unfair to reward plaintiff's delay by allowing it to take advantage of the 2016 law. View "DD Hair Lounge v. St. Farm General Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs did not have standing to seek review of the Town of New Shoreham’s decision to purchase a majority of the shares of Block Island Power Company (BIPCO).Plaintiffs - certain residents and taxpayers of the Town and BIPCO ratepayers - filed a motion seeking to enjoin the closing of sale of two-thirds of the shares of BIPCO by the New Shoreham town council. The superior court granted the Town’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiffs violated Rules 8 and 19 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and that the superior court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The stock sale subsequently closed. Plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this action. View "Warfel v. Town of New Shoreham" on Justia Law

Biel REO, LLC (“Biel REO”), filed a breach of contract and guaranty action. Note 1 was secured by property in Okaloosa County, Florida. While the Mississippi case remained pending, Biel REO foreclosed on the Florida collateral and obtained a deficiency judgment against Lee Freyer Kennedy Crestview, LLC (“LFK Crestview”). Biel REO appealed a circuit court finding that because Biel REO had obtained a judgment pursuant to Note 1 in Florida solely against LFK Crestview and because Biel REO’s pleadings requested relief based on Note 1 itself, Note 1 no longer existed. Thus, the Continuing Guaranty signed by Lee Freyer Kennedy (“Kennedy”) individually had nothing left to guarantee as to Note 1. Therefore, Kennedy was not personally liable on any obligations relating to Note 1. The Kennedy Defendants cross-appealed the circuit court finding that LFK Crestview was liable under Note 2 and that the Guaranty Agreement unambiguously encompassed Note 2. The Kennedy Defendants also appealed the trial court’s decision to award Biel REO attorneys’ fees and pre- and post-judgment interest in the amount of Note 2’s stated default rate of eighteen percent. With respect to Note 1, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the Florida judgments were sufficient evidence of an obligation of LFK Crestview to Biel REO, and the trial court erred in its determination that Biel REO was required to amend its pleadings to include the Florida judgments. With respect to Note 2, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the Kennedy Defendants failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove the assignments were not effective. In addition, the Supreme Court held the trial court correctly found Kennedy to be personally liable for the indebtedness of LFK Crestview pursuant to Note 2. Lastly, the trial court’s award of pre- and post-judgment interest and its award of attorneys’ fees was affirmed. View "Biel Reo, LLC v. Lee Freyer Kennedy Crestview, LLC" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of Trader Joe's to plaintiff's first amended complaint. The court held that plaintiff adequately stated a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations. The court reasoned that one, like Trader Joe's here, who was not a party to the contract or an agent of a party to the contract was a "stranger" for purpose of the tort of intentional interference with contract, and plaintiff need not allege an independently wrongful act to state his cause of action for interference with contract. The court held that plaintiff adequately stated causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. View "Redfearn v. Trader Joe's Company" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of Trader Joe's to plaintiff's first amended complaint. The court held that plaintiff adequately stated a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations. The court reasoned that one, like Trader Joe's here, who was not a party to the contract or an agent of a party to the contract was a "stranger" for purpose of the tort of intentional interference with contract, and plaintiff need not allege an independently wrongful act to state his cause of action for interference with contract. The court held that plaintiff adequately stated causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. View "Redfearn v. Trader Joe's Company" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following questions regarding D.C. partnership law: (1) Under District of Columbia law does a dissociated partner owe a duty to his or her former law firm to account for profits earned post-departure on legal matters that were in progress but not completed at the time of the partner's departure, where the partner's former law firm had been hired to handle those matters on an hourly basis and where those matters were completed at another firm that hired the partner? (2) If the answer to question (1) is "yes," then does District of Columbia law allow a partner's former law firm to recover those profits from the partner's new law firm under an unjust enrichment theory? (3) Under District of Columbia law what interest, if any, does a dissolved law firm have in profits earned on legal matters that were in progress but not completed at the time the law firm was dissolved, where the dissolved law firm had been retained to handle the matters on an hourly basis, and where those matters were completed at different pre-existing firms that hired partners of the dissolved firm post-dissolution? View "Diamond v. Hogan Lovells US LLP" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following questions regarding D.C. partnership law: (1) Under District of Columbia law does a dissociated partner owe a duty to his or her former law firm to account for profits earned post-departure on legal matters that were in progress but not completed at the time of the partner's departure, where the partner's former law firm had been hired to handle those matters on an hourly basis and where those matters were completed at another firm that hired the partner? (2) If the answer to question (1) is "yes," then does District of Columbia law allow a partner's former law firm to recover those profits from the partner's new law firm under an unjust enrichment theory? (3) Under District of Columbia law what interest, if any, does a dissolved law firm have in profits earned on legal matters that were in progress but not completed at the time the law firm was dissolved, where the dissolved law firm had been retained to handle the matters on an hourly basis, and where those matters were completed at different pre-existing firms that hired partners of the dissolved firm post-dissolution? View "Diamond v. Hogan Lovells US LLP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the Pike and Susan Sullivan Foundation (the Foundation), on this action seeking a declaratory judgment and a judicial dissolution of the Foundation.Susan Sullivan and her late-husband Pike Sullivan established and funded the Foundation. The Sullivans and George Harris served as directors of the Foundation until Pike died, at which time his position on the board was filled by Mr. Harris’s wife. Susan later filed suit requesting that the court enter a declaration judgment to void Mrs. Harris’s election to the board and seeking judicial dissolution of the Foundation on the grounds that management of the Foundation would be deadlocked after Mrs. Harris’s election was invalidated. The district court granted summary judgment for the Foundation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) concluding that Susan cannot sustain a claim for judicial dissolution of the Foundation based upon board deadlock; and (2) denying Susan’s request for a continuance of the summary judgment proceeding until discovery was complete. View "Sullivan v. Pike & Susan Sullivan Foundation" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was whether the district court correctly held that ACE American Insurance Company (ACE) had no duty to defend and indemnify DISH Network (DISH) in a lawsuit alleging that DISH’s use of telemarketing phone calls violated various federal and state laws. The primary question centered on whether statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act were “damages” under the insurance policies at issue and insurable under Colorado law, or were uninsurable “penalties.” The Court concluded they were penalties under controlling Colorado law, and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of ACE. View "ACE American Insurance Company v. Dish Network" on Justia Law