Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

A fatal car crash led to a lawsuit against two Indiana restaurants that had served alcohol to the intoxicated driver responsible for the accident. The estate of the deceased sued the restaurants for negligence, arguing that they should have known the driver was visibly intoxicated and should not have allowed him to drive. The restaurants argued that the Indiana Dram Shop Act, which provides civil liability for establishments that serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated individuals who later cause injuries, eliminated any independent common-law liability. Therefore, they contended that the negligence claim should be dismissed.The Indiana Supreme Court held that the Dram Shop Act did not eliminate common-law liability, but rather modified it. The court ruled that claims against establishments that serve alcohol must still satisfy the requirements of the Dram Shop Act, namely that the server must have actual knowledge of the individual's visible intoxication, and that the individual's intoxication must be a proximate cause of the injury or damage. The court found that the estate's negligence claim met these requirements and therefore, the negligence claim was valid and could proceed. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny the restaurants' motion to dismiss the negligence claim. View "WEOC v. Adair" on Justia Law

The City of Richmond Heights, Missouri filed a claim with Mt. Hawley Insurance Company under a commercial property policy for losses of tax revenue due to government-mandated COVID-19 closures. Mt. Hawley denied the claim and sued for a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to cover the losses. Richmond Heights counterclaimed with five counts: (1) breach of contract, (2) vexatious refusal to pay, (3) fraudulent inducement and misrepresentation, (4) negligent misrepresentation, and (5) breach of fiduciary duty. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the counterclaims, denied amendments to two of them, and granted declaratory judgment to Mt. Hawley. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court.The appellate court held that the insurance policy required "direct physical loss of or damage to property" for coverage which was not met by the COVID-19 shutdowns. The court also rejected the city's argument that the Additional Covered Property Endorsement in the policy removed the "physical damage or loss" requirement for losses of sales tax revenues. Furthermore, the court found that the city's claims of fraud, misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty were not distinct from its breach of contract claim and thus were properly dismissed by the district court. Lastly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the city's motion to amend its breach of contract and vexatious refusal claims, concluding that the proposed amendments would not have survived a motion to dismiss. View "Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. City of Richmond Heights" on Justia Law

In this case, BioCorRx, Inc., a publicly traded company engaged in providing addiction treatment services and related medication, was involved in a dispute with VDM Biochemicals, Inc., a company specializing in chemical synthesis and distribution. The dispute arose from a business relationship in which BioCorRx intended to partner with VDM to develop and commercialize a compound for treating opioid overdose, known as VDM-001. BioCorRx issued several press releases, allegedly making misrepresentations and improperly disclosing confidential information about the development of VDM-001. VDM filed a cross-complaint against BioCorRx and its president, Brady Granier, for breach of contract, fraud, and violation of trade secrets among other claims. In response, BioCorRx and Granier filed a motion to strike the allegations based on the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the press releases were protected speech under the statute.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, ruled that the press releases fell within the commercial speech exemption of the anti-SLAPP statute, as they were representations about BioCorRx’s business operations made to promote its goods and services to investors. As such, these statements were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Consequently, the court reversed the portion of the trial court’s order granting the anti-SLAPP motion as to the press releases. However, the court affirmed the portion of the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion as to Brady Granier, BioCorRx’s president, due to insufficient argument presented against this part of the ruling. View "BioCorRx, Inc. v. VDM Biochemicals, Inc." on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed a case involving the Cenikor Foundation, a nonprofit drug rehabilitation center. The foundation had been sued by a group of its rehabilitation patients for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The patients contended that they were effectively employees of the foundation, as they were required to work as part of their treatment program without receiving monetary compensation. The foundation contested the lawsuit and appealed a district court's decision to certify the case as a collective action under the FLSA.The Court of Appeals found that the district court had applied the incorrect legal standard in determining whether the patients were employees under the FLSA. Specifically, the court should have applied a test to determine who was the primary beneficiary of the work relationship, rather than a test typically used to distinguish employees from independent contractors.The appellate court remanded the case back to the district court to apply this primary beneficiary test and to consider the foundation's defense that any benefits provided to the patients offset any requirement to pay them a wage. The court emphasized that the question of whether the foundation's patients were employees under the FLSA was a threshold issue that needed to be resolved before the case could proceed as a collective action. View "Klick v. Cenikor Foundation" on Justia Law

In this case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Jet Midwest International Co., Ltd. (Jet Midwest International) sought attorneys’ fees and costs from Jet Midwest Group, LLC (JMG) and other defendants (collectively referred to as the Ohadi/Woolley defendants). The request was made in connection with a fraudulent transfer action filed under the Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA), following a term loan agreement between Jet Midwest International and JMG which JMG failed to repay. The district court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs against the Ohadi/Woolley defendants, who were not parties to the term loan agreement, based on its finding that they conspired with JMG to violate the MUFTA.On appeal, the Eighth Circuit found that the district court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs against the Ohadi/Woolley defendants based on the term loan agreement since they were not parties to that agreement. However, the court held that the district court's finding of "intentional misconduct" by the Ohadi/Woolley defendants in conspiring with JMG to violate the MUFTA could justify an attorneys’ fees award under the "special circumstances" exception to the American Rule (which generally requires each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees).The court vacated the award and remanded the case back to the district court to calculate a reasonable attorneys’ fee using the lodestar method (multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rates), and to determine the extent to which the claimed costs are recoverable under the relevant statute. The court's holding did not limit JMG’s ultimate responsibility for attorneys’ fees and costs under the term loan agreement. View "Jet Midwest International Co. v. Ohadi" on Justia Law

In this case, employers M&K Employee Solutions, LLC and Ohio Magnetics, Inc. withdrew from the IAM National Pension Fund during the 2018 plan year. The Fund assessed withdrawal liability for each entity based on actuarial assumptions. Both employers challenged their respective assessments and won in arbitration, with the arbitrator ruling that the Fund's actuary erred in setting actuarial assumptions for a given measurement date after the measurement date based on information available at that date. The Fund appealed and the district court vacated the arbitration awards, ruling that an actuary may indeed set actuarial assumptions for a given measurement date after the measurement date based on information available "as of" the measurement date.The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that it would be contrary to the legislative intent of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act to require an actuary to determine what assumptions to use before the close of business on the measurement date. The court also ruled that M&K was entitled to a “free-look” exception because it partially withdrew from the Fund within a period of less than five years, meaning it could withdraw without incurring liability. View "Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund v. M & K Employee Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the plaintiffs were U.S. investors who purchased Mexican government bonds. They alleged that the defendants, Mexican branches of several multinational banks, conspired to fix the prices of the bonds. The defendants sold the bonds to the plaintiffs through non-party broker-dealers. The defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the District Court granted the motion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction as the alleged misconduct, price-fixing of bonds, occurred solely in Mexico.Upon appeal, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the case. The court found that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with New York as they had solicited and executed bond sales through their agents, the broker-dealers. The plaintiffs' claims arose from or were related to these contacts. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the alleged wrongdoing must occur in the jurisdiction for personal jurisdiction to exist, stating that the defendants' alleged active sales of price-fixed bonds through their agents in New York sufficed to establish personal jurisdiction. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re: Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Alabama, David and Anna Roberson appealed from an order by the Jefferson Circuit Court that dismissed their indemnification claim against Drummond Company, Inc. ("Drummond"). David, a former vice president of Drummond, was convicted of bribery in federal court for approving payments that were part of an environmental public-relations campaign. After his conviction, Drummond continued to pay David's salary and benefits for a period, but later terminated his employment. The Robersons then sued Drummond and others, asserting multiple claims, including one for indemnification. They alleged that Drummond had directed David to make the payments that were later deemed to be bribes, and that he had incurred damages as a result, for which Drummond had a duty to indemnify him. The circuit court dismissed the indemnification claim, ruling that indemnification generally comes into play in a contractual arrangement, and the Robersons had neither produced nor alleged the existence of a contract or agreement establishing such a duty. The Robersons appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the losses the Robersons sought to recover were not indemnifiable, as they were not judicially imposed liabilities to a third party or out-of-pocket expenses that David incurred in processing the invoices. The court also found that the Robersons failed to demonstrate they had sufficiently pleaded a claim for common-law indemnification. The court rejected the Robersons' argument that Drummond's resolution to pay David's salary and benefits constituted a contract for indemnification, stating that the obligation they alleged Drummond undertook was not a promise to indemnify David, but simply a promise not to fire him. Finally, the court found that the Robersons had failed to preserve their claim for court-ordered indemnification under the Alabama Business and Nonprofit Entity Code for appellate review, as they had not asserted this argument in the trial court. View "Roberson v. Drummond Company, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, Autumn Wind Lending, LLC (Autumn Wind) had lent money to Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC (Insight) under an agreement that Insight would not incur any further debt without Autumn Wind's consent. However, Insight defaulted on the loan and filed for bankruptcy, during which it was revealed that it had taken on additional debt from other parties, including John J. Siegel and three family enterprises. Autumn Wind, which had become the parent company of Insight, then filed a lawsuit against these parties, alleging fraud and tortious interference. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was asked to decide whether the doctrine of res judicata, which bars relitigation of a claim that has been adjudicated, prevented Autumn Wind from bringing these claims. The court held that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar Autumn Wind from bringing its claims. The court reasoned that the claims had not been "actually litigated" because they were dismissed by stipulation in the bankruptcy court, not decided on the merits. Furthermore, Autumn Wind could not have litigated these claims in the bankruptcy court because it was not a party to the bankruptcy proceedings. The court therefore reversed the district court's dismissal of Autumn Wind's claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Autumn Wind Lending, LLC v. Siegel" on Justia Law

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Court reviewed a case involving the estates of two patients who passed away after undergoing liposuction procedures at CJL Healthcare, LLC in Georgia. After the patients' deaths, their estates filed lawsuits against the clinic and its doctor. The clinic's insurer, Prime Insurance Co., defended the clinic under a reservation of rights but ultimately withdrew its defense after the costs of defending the lawsuits exhausted the insurance coverage.The estates of the patients and the clinic then filed a lawsuit against the insurers, Prime Insurance Co., Prime Holdings Insurance Services, and Evolution Insurance Brokers, claiming they had breached their duties, contract, and acted negligently. They also claimed the insurers had unlawfully sold surplus lines insurance. The district court dismissed the case, and the plaintiffs appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The Court held that the policy unambiguously provided a $50,000 limit for a single professional liability claim and a $100,000 aggregate limit for all claims. The Court further held that the insurers' duty to defend the clinic ended when the policy limits were exhausted by payment of damages and claim expenses. The Court also affirmed the district court's finding that the Georgia Surplus Lines Insurance Act did not provide a private cause of action for the unauthorized sale of surplus lines insurance. View "Jumlist v. Prime Insurance Co." on Justia Law