Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The Court of Chancery denied Defendants' motion to dismiss this action asserting that the management team (or sponsor) and directors of a special acquisition company (SPAC) breached their fiduciary obligations, holding that it was reasonably conceivable that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties.For a SPAC organized as a Delaware corporation, stockholders are assured that the SPAC's fiduciaries will abide by certain standards of conduct. Plaintiff, a stockholder, filed a putative class action alleging that Defendants undertook a value destructive deal that generated returns for the sponsor while impairing stockholders' ability to decide whether to redeem or to invest in the post-merger company. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Court of Chancery denied the motion, holding that the complaint stated reasonably conceivable claims against Defendants in counts one, two, and three. View "Delman v. GigAquisitions3, LLC" on Justia Law

Sagome, Inc.’s restaurant, L’Hostaria, suffered significant financial losses from reduced customer traffic and government lockdowns and restrictions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. It sought to recover under its comprehensive general insurance policy. And like many insurers, The Cincinnati Insurance Company denied coverage because the virus did not impose physical loss or damage as required by the policy. Sagome sued, but the district court concluded its financial losses were not covered. Addressing Sagome’s coverage under Colorado law, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed: COVID-19 did not cause Sagome to suffer a qualifying loss because there was never any direct physical loss or damage to L’Hostaria. View "Sagome v. Cincinnati Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Doe alleges that she was sexually assaulted by a massage therapist during a massage at a San Rafael Massage Envy retail location. She filed suit against the Arizona-based franchisor that licenses the “Massage Envy” brand name (MEF), and the independently owned San Rafael franchise where the assault allegedly occurred. MEF moved to compel arbitration on the basis of a “Terms of Use Agreement” presented to Doe when she checked in for a massage she had booked at the franchise location. The trial court concluded that there was no agreement to arbitrate between Doe and MEF.The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting MEF’s argument that the “Terms of Use Agreement,” which was available to Doe via a hyperlink on the electronic tablet she was given at the franchise, was a valid and enforceable “clickwrap” agreement of the sort that courts routinely enforce. Doe did not have reasonable notice that she was entering into any agreement with MEF, much less notice of the terms of the agreement. The transaction was nothing like the typical transactions in which clickwrap agreements are used; Doe went to a physical location, where she was already a member, and was handed a tablet to check in for a massage. View "Doe v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants Michael and Dawn Heath sold Plaintiff Harry Johnson a gasoline and automobile-service station in Wells, Nevada. Soon after the sale, Plaintiff allegedly discovered that the property had material, undisclosed defects and that Defendants had artificially inflated the business’s profits by scamming customers over the years. In suing them, Plaintiff asserted many state-law claims against both Defendants and a claim against Defendant Michael Heath under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s RICO claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. The issue Plaintiff's appeal raised for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether Defendants’ actions as alleged plausibly violated the federal RICO statute. Because the Court concluded they did not, it affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Johnson v. Heath, et al." on Justia Law

John’s Grill in San Francisco was closed or operating at limited capacity during the pandemic. The restaurant was covered by Sentinel’s “Spectrum Business Owner’s Policy,” providing first-party property coverage, third-party liability coverage, and umbrella liability coverage. Sentinel denied the Grill’s claim for business interruption coverage. The trial court upheld the denial.The court of appeal reversed. A nearly uniform line of cases has held that temporary loss of use of property due to the COVID-19 pandemic does not constitute “direct physical loss of or damage to” property for purposes of first-party insurance coverage; nearly all of these cases involved standard form language that was not customized in any material way. Sentinel’s policy, however, has customized language. Other cases have analyzed the undefined term “direct physical loss of or damage to” property. Sentinel’s policy, by endorsement, affirmatively grants coverage for “loss or damage” caused by a virus; a special definition of “loss or damage” is broad enough to encompass pervasive infiltration of virus particulates onto the surfaces of covered property. The coverage is expressly limited to situations in which the virus is the “result of” a listed cause, none of which John’s Grill has alleged. The court rejected Sentinel’s proposed broad reading, citing the illusory coverage doctrine. Insuring agreements should be read broadly in favor of coverage, View "John's Grill, Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Demo Services employs product demonstrators, who are classified as “part-time, nonexempt, hourly employees eligible for overtime pay according to state and federal law.” Demonstrators are generally assigned to a single Costco. There is office space within each Costco for demonstrators. Espinoza, employed as a demonstrator from 2011-2016, received a “Demonstrator Handbook.” Espinoza worked four days a week and her regular shift lasted for six hours. Upon arriving at Costco, Espinoza went to the office, clocked in, reviewed her assignment, got her supplies, set up her cart, went to the floor near the product, and started demonstrating the product. Espinoza could only leave her demonstration area to take a break when an assigned “breaker” relieved her. At the end of her shift, Espinoza had 15 minutes to return her cart to the office, wash her dishes, store her supplies, then clock out, entering her lunch break time. Espinoza filed a class action, alleging Labor Code violations.The trial court granted Demo summary judgment, reasoning that the outside salesperson exemption applied because Espinoza did not work at a site owned or controlled by her employer. The court of appeal reversed. An employee working at a fixed site not owned or leased by the employer is not subject to the outside salesperson exemption where the employer controls the employee’s hours and working conditions. Demo assigned Espinoza to work a fixed site, within a small, designated area, and controlled her conditions of work. View "Espinoza v. Warehouse Demo Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Norwegian Cruise Lines Ltd. obtained the injunction barring the Florida Surgeon General from enforcing a prohibition against businesses requiring proof of vaccination as a condition of service. But Norwegian recently filed a suggestion of mootness stating that it no longer requires proof of vaccinations on its cruises. Yet, Norwegian’s filings make clear that it has not suspended its vaccination requirements permanently or categorically. It also continues to defend its entitlement to equitable relief by asking us to leave the preliminary injunction intact.   The Eleventh Circuit denied Norwegian’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The court explained that it agrees with the Surgeon General that a “live dispute” exists because Norwegian has not established that it has relaxed its vaccination requirements permanently or categorically. “The possibility that a party may change its mind in the future is sufficient to preclude a finding of mootness.” The court explained Norwegian has offered no evidence of its vaccine policies or its intentions for the future beyond the boilerplate statement that it is not requiring COVID-19 vaccination for now and for the foreseeable future. Indeed, Norwegian appears to concede that it has not abolished its policy forevermore.’The court saw no reason to believe that Norwegian will not seek to reinstate its policy given its continued insistence that the Florida law is unconstitutional. View "Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd, et al. v. State Surgeon General" on Justia Law

In these two different qui tam cases in which the United States executed a settlement agreement with AthenaHealth, Inc. and multiple relators, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Relators' denial of their claims for attorneys' fees, holding that the district court did not err.Relators Cheryl Lovell and William McKusick appealed from the district court's denial of their entire claim for attorneys' fees under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and relator Georgie Sandborn appealed from the omission of certain claimed fees from his attorneys' fees award. The First Circuit (1) affirmed as to Lovell and McKusick, holding that these relators did not receive a relator's share and so were not entitled to attorneys' fees; and (2) affirmed as to Sanborn, thus rejecting his argument that he may be allowed fees associated with his claim, in which the government did not intervene. View "United States, ex rel. Lovell v. AthenaHealth, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against all Defendants, and a claim pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Act against Cardone and Cardone Capital. At issue was whether Cardone and Cardone Capital count as persons who “offer or sell” securities under Section 12(a) based on their social media communications to prospective investors. The district court concluded that Cardone and Cardone Capital did not qualify as statutory sellers.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The panel concluded that Section 12 contains no requirement that a solicitation be directed or targeted to a particular plaintiff, and accordingly, held that a person can solicit a purchase, within the meaning of the Securities Act, by promoting the sale of a security in mass communication. Because the First Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that Cardone and Cardone Capital were engaged in solicitation of investments in Funds V and VI, the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s claim against Cardone and Cardone Capital under Section 12(a)(2), and also erred in dismissing his Section 15 claim for lack of a primary violation of the Securities Act. View "LUIS PINO V. CARDONE CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that J.C. O'Brien & Sons, Inc. (JCO) was entitled to purchase Michael O'Brien's (Mike) shares in JCO at the value set pursuant to a 1973 shareholder agreement, holding that the district court did not err.Plaintiffs initiated this litigation alleging, among other claims, that Defendants breached the 1973 agreement in its efforts to purchase Mike's shares and seeking valuation of his shares by current appraisal. The district court ruled against Plaintiffs after a bench trial and ordered that JCO was entitled to purchase Mike's shares at the price designated by directors in 2017 pursuant to paragraph two of the 1973 agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err. View "O'Brien v. O'Brien" on Justia Law