Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

This case involves a dispute between Griggs & Browne Pest Control Co., Inc. (plaintiff), and its former employee, Brian Walls (defendant). Upon hiring Walls in 2011, the parties entered into a noncompetition agreement, which was updated in 2020. The agreement stipulated that, in return for his training and access to the company's client list, Walls would refrain from soliciting business from or performing services for the company's current or former customers for 24 months after ending his employment with the company.In 2021, the company introduced a new policy requiring all employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccination or terminate their employment. Walls vocally opposed the policy and was told he could no longer resume his employment. A month later, the company discovered that Walls was contacting their former clients and performing pest-control services for them, in violation of the noncompetition agreement. The company initiated a lawsuit to prevent Walls from further violating the agreement.The Superior Court of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiff, which Walls appealed. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that the noncompetition agreement was valid and enforceable. The court rejected Walls' argument that he had been improperly terminated due to his refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, noting that the circumstances surrounding his departure were immaterial to the enforcement of the noncompetition agreement. The court also found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm due to loss of customer goodwill if Walls were allowed to continue servicing the company's clients. The balance of equities favored the plaintiff, and the injunction was necessary to uphold the status quo. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiff. View "Griggs & Browne Pest Control Co., Inc. v. Walls" on Justia Law

In California, plaintiff Jasmine Moten appealed the trial court’s decision to grant an anti-SLAPP motion filed by defendant, Transworld Systems Inc. (Transworld). Moten had taken out a student loan which she later defaulted on, leading to Transworld, a debt collection company, servicing the loan. Transworld filed a debt collection action against Moten on behalf of National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3 (NCSLT 2007-3), to whom the loan had been assigned. Moten filed a class action lawsuit against Transworld, alleging that it did not have a valid legal claim as it had manufactured documents to prove ownership of the loan by NCSLT 2007-3. She claimed that these deceptive practices violated the Robbins-Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as well as Unfair Competition and Unlawful Business Acts and Practices. The trial court granted Transworld's anti-SLAPP motion, which led to Moten's appeal. The Court of Appeal for the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the trial court erred in applying the litigation privilege to Moten's claims. The appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether Moten has a probability of prevailing on her claims and to consider the public interest exception of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.17. View "Moten v. Transworld Systems Inc." on Justia Law

In the case, Remy Holdings International, LLC ("Remy") sued Fisher Auto Parts, Inc. ("Fisher") after Fisher terminated their business relationship and sold its inventory to a different manufacturer. Remy claimed that Fisher wrongfully terminated their agreement and that the inventory Fisher sold belonged to Remy. Remy brought claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Fisher counterclaimed for breach of contract due to Remy's poor performance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions, which were all in Fisher's favor. The court found that Remy committed the first material breach of the contract by failing to keep Fisher competitive in the marketplace. Furthermore, Fisher did not waive its right to assert the first material breach defense by continuing to order from Remy and occasionally waiving the order-fill penalty. Therefore, Remy was precluded from enforcing the contract and its breach of contract claim related to ownership of the inventory was dismissed.The court also rejected Remy's argument that the district court should have reinstated its unjust enrichment claim after declaring its contractual rights unenforceable. Remy had failed to respond to Fisher's motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, and as a result, forfeited any opposition to its dismissal.Lastly, the court found no error with the district court's evidentiary rulings, including the admission of expert testimony and the USA Core Policy, and its refusal to instruct the jury on certain defenses. View "Remy Holdings International, LLC v. Fisher Auto Parts, Inc" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, private citizens and a non-profit organization sued High Mountain Mining Company for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs claimed that High Mountain Mining, which operates a gold mine in Colorado, allowed pollutants from its settling ponds to seep into the groundwater, which then migrated into a nearby river. Under the Clean Water Act, a permit is required for any discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the settling ponds were a point source and that the operation of these ponds constituted an unpermitted discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, thus violating the Clean Water Act. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit disagreed and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court made a legal error by not adequately considering all the relevant factors to determine whether the connection between the point source and the navigable water was the functional equivalent of a direct discharge. Given the potentially broad implications of the Clean Water Act for mines throughout the Western United States, the appellate court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. View "Stone v. High Mountain Mining Company" on Justia Law

In the case before the Indiana Supreme Court, the defendant, Expert Pool Builders, LLC, appealed a default judgment entered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Paul Vangundy. The default judgment was entered because Expert Pool failed to timely file a response to Vangundy's complaint. Expert Pool had opposed Vangundy's motion for a default judgment three times but a divided Court of Appeals panel concluded Expert Pool waived its challenge to the default judgment. The majority of the Court of Appeals interpreted a previous decision as requiring Expert Pool to reassert its argument in a Trial Rule 60(B) motion to set aside the judgment before it could obtain appellate review and dismissed the appeal.The Indiana Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. It held that Expert Pool did not need to file a Trial Rule 60(B) motion to preserve its right to appeal. It reasoned that once a party obtains a final ruling from the trial court, the party has preserved the issue for appellate review. The Court stated that Expert Pool had already presented its argument opposing default judgment before judgment was entered, so there was no need to file a post-judgment motion.On the merits of the case, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of default judgment against Expert Pool. The Court held that Expert Pool's challenge to the default judgment required the Court to reweigh the evidence and rebalance the equities, something that its standard of review does not permit. The trial court concluded that the parties never agreed to extend Expert Pool’s deadline for a responsive pleading and that Expert Pool chose to ignore Vangundy’s complaint. Therefore, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Expert Pool Builders, LLC v. VanGundy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Joseph Kasiotis filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated New York consumers against the New York Black Car Operators’ Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”). The lawsuit alleged that the Fund improperly collected a surcharge on noncash tips paid by passengers to drivers providing livery or “black car” services from January 2000 until February 1, 2021. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of Kasiotis and the class, granting summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Fund was statutorily permitted to collect a surcharge on noncash tips. The court's ruling was based on Article 6-F of the New York Executive Law, which unambiguously authorizes the Fund to impose a surcharge on noncash tips paid in connection with covered black car services. As such, the Second Circuit Court reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Kasiotis and the class, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim. View "Kasiotis v. N.Y. Black Car Operators' Inj. Comp. Fund, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose from a dispute between Gregory Garrabrants, the CEO of BofI Federal Bank (BofI), and Charles Matthew Erhart, a former internal auditor at BofI who acted as a whistleblower. Erhart copied, transmitted, and retained various documents he believed evidenced possible wrongdoing, some of which contained Garrabrants' personal and confidential information. Garrabrants sued Erhart for accessing, taking, and subsequently retaining his personal information. A jury awarded Garrabrants $1,502 on claims for invasion of privacy, receiving stolen property, and unauthorized access to computer data.However, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed the judgment and remanded the case. The court found that the trial court made prejudicial errors in its jury instructions. Specifically, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that bank customers have an unqualified reasonable expectation of privacy in financial documents disclosed to banks. The trial court also erred in instructing the jury that Erhart's whistleblower justification defense depended on proving at least one legally unsupported element. The instructions given for Penal Code section 496 misstated the law by defining “theft” in a manner that essentially renders receiving stolen property a strict liability offense. Furthermore, the special instruction on Penal Code section 502 erroneously removed from the jury’s consideration the foundational issue of whether Garrabrants “owned” the data about him residing in BofI’s computer systems such that he could pursue a civil action under the statute. The court concluded that, in light of the record evidence, there is a reasonable possibility a jury could have found in Erhart’s favor on each of Garrabrants’ claims absent the erroneous instructions, making them prejudicial. View "Garrabrants v. Erhart" on Justia Law

In the case of a contested divorce between Quin Whitman and Douglas F. Whitman, the founder of a once successful hedge fund, the Court of Appeal of the State of California ruled on several issues. The court affirmed that Doug failed to prove he retained any separate property interest in the hedge fund at the time of dissolution, despite an initial $300,000 investment of his own separate funds. The court also ruled that the community was not financially responsible for any of the legal fees Doug incurred to defend against criminal charges brought against him for insider trading or the $250,000 fine imposed on him in that case. However, the court erred in holding the community responsible for the $935,000 penalty imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission for illegal insider trading. Quin did not demonstrate that the court erred in holding the community responsible for legal fees expended by the hedge fund when it intervened as a third party into these proceedings. The court also concluded that Quin failed to prove her claim that Doug breached his fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of the couple’s luxury home. The court concluded that the couple’s entire interest in the hedge fund is community property, subject to equal division. The court also found that Doug's legal expenses incurred in defending against insider trading charges and the $250,000 fine imposed on him were his separate debts. View "In re Whitman" on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has selected the Friedlander Team as lead counsel and the NYC/Oregon Funds as lead plaintiffs in a derivative lawsuit against Fox Corporation. After the 2020 presidential election, Fox News broadcasted statements accusing two voting machine companies of facilitating election fraud, leading to defamation lawsuits against the network. Fox Corporation paid $787.5 million to settle one lawsuit, with another still pending. As a result, various stockholders filed derivative complaints, seeking to shift the losses from the corporation to the directors and officers allegedly responsible for the harm. The court was required to choose between two competing teams of attorneys to lead the consolidated actions. After evaluating the teams according to recently amended Rule 23.1, which identifies factors for consideration when resolving leadership disputes, the court selected the Friedlander Team and the NYC/Oregon Funds. The court noted the deliberate, client-driven process through which these entities were chosen, their resources and expertise, and the legitimacy conferred by the involvement of public officials. View "In re Fox Corporation Derivative Litigation" on Justia Law

In the case before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, plaintiff and counterclaim-defendant Ted D. Kellner sought to challenge certain bylaws adopted by AIM ImmunoTech Inc., defendant and counterclaim-plaintiff, and its board of directors. Kellner, Deutsch, and Chioini sought to nominate themselves as director candidates for AIM's 2023 annual meeting. Kellner claims that AIM's advance notice bylaws, which were amended in 2023, are invalid and inequitable. He also asserts that the Board's rejection of his nomination notice was improper.The court found that four out of six challenged provisions of AIM's amended bylaws were inequitable and therefore invalid. These provisions were found to be overly broad and ambiguous, effectively obstructing the stockholder franchise and providing the Board with undue discretion to reject a nomination. The court also found that Kellner's notice complied with the remaining, valid bylaws and that AIM's rejection of the notice was therefore improper.The court's decision means that Kellner's nominees must be included on the ballot for AIM's 2023 annual meeting. The four invalid provisions of the bylaws have been struck down and are of no force or effect. The remaining provisions of the bylaws, which were not challenged, stand. In essence, the court found that AIM's board of directors overstepped in its efforts to ward off a proxy contest, and in doing so, it infringed on the rights of stockholders. View "Kellner v. AIM Immunotech Inc., et al." on Justia Law