Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

US Ghost Adventures, LLC (Ghost Adventures) operates a bed and breakfast at the Lizzie Borden House in Fall River, Massachusetts, offering ghost tours and related activities. Ghost Adventures holds federal trademarks for the name "Lizzie Borden" and a hatchet logo. Miss Lizzie's Coffee LLC (Miss Lizzie's) opened a coffee shop next to the Lizzie Borden House, using the Lizzie Borden story in its marketing, including a hatchet logo and references to being "The Most Haunted Coffee Shop in the World." Some visitors mistakenly believed the two businesses were affiliated.Ghost Adventures sued Miss Lizzie's in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for trademark infringement and unfair competition, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Miss Lizzie's from using the "Lizzie Borden" name and hatchet logo. The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that Ghost Adventures failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court determined that the key element in any infringement action is the likelihood of confusion, which Ghost Adventures did not demonstrate. The court found that Miss Lizzie's hatchet logo and use of the name "Lizzie" were not similar enough to Ghost Adventures' trademarks to cause confusion.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the hatchet logos were dissimilar and that Miss Lizzie's reference to "Lizzie" was to the historical figure, not the trademark. The court also found that any consumer confusion was due to the proximity of the businesses and their common reliance on the Lizzie Borden story, not the similarity of their marks. The court concluded that Ghost Adventures did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "US Ghost Adventures, LLC v. Miss Lizzie's Coffee LLC" on Justia Law

Les and Gretchen Howell invested in a silver-trading scheme called the Silver Pool, operated by Gaylen Rust through Rust Rare Coin. Les invested about $1.2 million and received $3.2 million in profits, while Gretchen invested $96,450 but lost $74,450. Les used his profits to buy land and build a house in Kingman, Arizona, and made Gretchen a joint tenant. The Silver Pool was later exposed as a Ponzi scheme, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) brought an enforcement action against Rust. Jonathan O. Hafen was appointed as the receiver to recover assets fraudulently transferred through the scheme.The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted Hafen summary judgment against Les and Gretchen on fraudulent-transfer claims under Utah’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), ordering them to return Les’s $3.2 million profit. The court also awarded Hafen prejudgment interest at a 5% rate. The Howells sought reconsideration and clarification of the judgment, particularly regarding Gretchen’s liability. The district court clarified that Gretchen was liable for $1.5 million, representing half of the $3 million Les invested in the Kingman property.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s application of the Ponzi presumption under the UVTA and the reliance on expert reports. However, it found that the district court erred in calculating the judgment against Gretchen. The appellate court held that the judgment should reflect the value of Gretchen’s interest in the Kingman property at the time of transfer, not the amount Les invested. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine the correct amount of the judgment against Gretchen. The court otherwise affirmed the district court’s rulings. View "Hafen v. Howell" on Justia Law

VFS Leasing Co. ("VFS") leased trucks to Time Definite Leasing, LLC ("TDL"), which insured the trucks with Markel American Insurance Company ("Markel American"). Markel American issued joint checks to VFS and TDL for insurance claims, but TDL cashed the checks without VFS's endorsement and kept the proceeds. VFS sued Markel American for breach of contract, claiming it was owed the funds from the joint checks.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of VFS, holding that Markel American breached the insurance contract by failing to ensure VFS received the funds. The court found that under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Markel American's obligation was not discharged because the checks were not properly endorsed by both co-payees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether Markel American's obligation to VFS was discharged when the drawee bank improperly accepted the joint checks. The court concluded that under Florida Statute § 673.4141(3), a drawer's obligation is discharged when a bank accepts a jointly issued check, regardless of whether both co-payees endorsed it. The court noted that while VFS could pursue a conversion claim against the bank, Markel American's obligation was discharged upon the bank's acceptance of the checks.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of VFS and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VFS Leasing Co. v. Markel Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Texas Truck Parts & Tire, Incorporated, a wholesaler and retailer of truck parts and tires, purchased tires from Chinese manufacturers between 2012 and 2017. These manufacturers shipped the tires to Texas Truck in Houston, Texas. Texas Truck did not file quarterly excise tax returns or pay excise taxes on the tires, believing the Chinese manufacturers were the importers responsible for the tax. Following an IRS audit, Texas Truck was assessed approximately $1.9 million in taxes. Texas Truck paid a portion of the taxes and filed for a refund, which the IRS did not act upon, leading Texas Truck to file a lawsuit seeking a refund. The Government counterclaimed for the remaining taxes owed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Texas Truck, determining that the Chinese manufacturers were the importers and thus liable for the excise tax. The court based its decision on the interpretation that Texas Truck did not "bring" the tires into the United States under the applicable Treasury regulation, and did not consider whether Texas Truck was the beneficial owner of the tires.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that Texas Truck was the beneficial owner of the tires and therefore liable for the excise tax. The court found that the district court erred by not considering whether Texas Truck was the beneficial owner under the Treasury regulation. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Chinese manufacturers were nominal importers and that Texas Truck, as the beneficial owner, was responsible for the excise tax. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Texas Truck, rendered judgment for the Government, and remanded the case to the district court to determine the damages. View "Texas Truck Parts & Tire v. United States" on Justia Law

Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC supplied Pavestone, LLC with aggregate used to manufacture pavers. After customers complained about efflorescence on the pavers, Pavestone determined that sodium carbonate in Hi-Tech’s aggregate caused the issue. Pavestone sued Hi-Tech for negligence, products liability, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. The district court ruled in favor of Pavestone on the breach of warranty and products liability claims.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County conducted a bench trial and found that Hi-Tech breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and was liable under products liability. Hi-Tech appealed the decision, arguing that it did not know of Pavestone’s specific need for sodium-free aggregate and that the economic loss doctrine barred Pavestone’s tort claims.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that Hi-Tech’s sale of aggregate carried an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because Hi-Tech had reason to know Pavestone’s intended use. The court adopted the reasoning of UCC § 2-315, which does not require proof of a seller’s actual knowledge if the seller had reason to know the product’s intended purpose. The court also held that Pavestone was excused from testing the aggregate for sodium carbonate because the defect was latent and not detectable through a simple examination.However, the court reversed the district court’s ruling on the products liability claim, holding that the economic loss doctrine precluded Pavestone’s noncontractual claims. The doctrine applies when the damage is to the product itself and not to other property. Pavestone did not provide sufficient evidence of damage to property other than the pavers. Thus, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s judgment on the warranty claim but reversed its judgment on the products liability claims. View "Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC v. Pavestone, LLC" on Justia Law

Thomas Petters orchestrated a Ponzi scheme through his company, Petters Company, Inc. (PCI), which collapsed in 2008. Following Petters' arrest and conviction, PCI was placed into receivership, and Douglas Kelley was appointed as the receiver. Kelley later filed for bankruptcy on behalf of PCI and was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee. As trustee, Kelley initiated an adversary proceeding against BMO Harris Bank, alleging that the bank aided and abetted the Ponzi scheme.The bankruptcy court and the district court both ruled that the equitable defense of in pari delicto, which prevents a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing from recovering damages, was unavailable due to PCI's receivership status. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury awarded Kelley over $500 million in damages, finding BMO liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. BMO appealed, challenging the availability of the in pari delicto defense, among other issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the doctrine of in pari delicto barred Kelley’s action against BMO. The court reasoned that while a receiver might not be bound by the fraudulent acts of a corporation's officers under Minnesota law, a bankruptcy trustee stands in the shoes of the debtor and is subject to any defenses that could have been raised against the debtor. Since PCI was a wrongdoer, the defense of in pari delicto was available to BMO in the adversary proceeding. The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to enter judgment in favor of BMO. The cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A." on Justia Law

Lavonne S. Mottern died after receiving a contaminated intravenous injection at Princeton Medical Center, operated by Baptist Health System, Inc. (BHS). Donald J. Mottern, as administrator of Lavonne's estate, filed claims against BHS, Meds I.V., LLC (the manufacturer of the injection), and three individuals associated with Meds I.V. The claims against Meds I.V. and the individuals were settled, leaving only the claims against BHS, which included negligence, wantonness, a claim under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), and a breach of implied warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed all of Mottern's claims against BHS, including the negligence and wantonness claims, which BHS conceded should not have been dismissed. BHS argued that the AEMLD and UCC claims were subject to the Alabama Medical Liability Act (AMLA) and required proof of a breach of the standard of care. The trial court agreed and dismissed these claims, leading to Mottern's appeal.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and agreed with BHS that all of Mottern's claims, including those under the AEMLD and UCC, are subject to the AMLA's standard-of-care provisions. The court held that the AMLA applies to all actions for medical injury, regardless of the theory of liability, and requires proof of a breach of the standard of care. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the negligence and wantonness claims and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The main holding is that the AMLA's standard-of-care provisions apply to all claims alleging medical injury, including those under the AEMLD and UCC. View "Mottern v. Baptist Health System, Inc." on Justia Law

United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) challenged the Postal Regulatory Commission's (Commission) handling of the United States Postal Service's (Postal Service) pricing of competitive products, arguing that the Postal Service underprices these products by not accounting for "peak-season" costs incurred during the holiday season. UPS claimed that these costs, driven by increased demand for package deliveries, should be attributed to competitive products rather than being treated as institutional costs.The Commission denied UPS's petition to initiate rulemaking proceedings and its subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Commission found that UPS's methodology for calculating peak-season costs was flawed and did not produce reliable estimates. It also concluded that the existing cost-attribution framework already accounted for the costs caused by competitive products during the peak season. The Commission explained that the Postal Service's costing models, which use an incremental-cost approach, appropriately attribute costs to competitive products and that the remaining costs are correctly treated as institutional costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission's rejection of UPS's methodology was reasonable and well-explained. The court noted that the Commission had addressed UPS's concerns about the Postal Service's costing models and had initiated further proceedings to explore potential updates to the models. The court also rejected UPS's argument that the Commission failed to consider whether peak-season costs are institutional costs uniquely associated with competitive products, noting that this issue was not properly presented in this case.The court denied UPS's petition for review, affirming the Commission's orders. View "United Parcel Service, Inc. v. PRC" on Justia Law

Michael R. Rattagan, an Argentinian lawyer, was retained by Uber Technologies, Inc. through its Dutch subsidiaries to assist with launching Uber's ridesharing platform in Argentina. Rattagan also agreed to act as the Dutch subsidiaries' legal representative in Argentina, a role that exposed him to personal liability under Argentinian law. Despite warnings about potential personal exposure, Uber allegedly concealed its plans to launch the platform in Buenos Aires, which led to significant legal and reputational harm to Rattagan when the launch was deemed illegal by local authorities.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Rattagan’s third amended complaint without leave to amend, ruling that his fraudulent concealment claims were barred by the economic loss rule as interpreted in Robinson Helicopter v. Dana Corp. The court concluded that Robinson provided only a narrow exception to the economic loss rule, which did not apply to Rattagan’s claims of fraudulent concealment. The court also found that Rattagan’s negligence and implied covenant claims were time-barred.The Supreme Court of California, upon request from the Ninth Circuit, addressed whether a plaintiff may assert a tort claim for fraudulent concealment arising from or related to the performance of a contract under California law. The court held that a plaintiff may assert such a claim if the elements of the claim can be established independently of the parties’ contractual rights and obligations, and if the tortious conduct exposes the plaintiff to a risk of harm beyond the reasonable contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract. The court clarified that the economic loss rule does not bar tort recovery for fraudulent concealment in these circumstances. View "Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to modernize the billing system for the Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The rollout in 2013 resulted in billing errors, leading the City to sue PwC in 2015, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. Concurrently, a class action was filed against the City by Antwon Jones, represented by attorney Jack Landskroner, for overbilling. Discovery revealed that the City’s special counsel had orchestrated the class action to settle claims favorably for the City while planning to recover costs from PwC.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found the City engaged in extensive discovery abuse to conceal its misconduct, including withholding documents and providing false testimony. The court imposed $2.5 million in monetary sanctions against the City under the Civil Discovery Act, specifically sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, which allow sanctions for discovery misuse.The California Court of Appeal reversed the sanctions, interpreting the Civil Discovery Act as not granting general authority to impose sanctions for discovery misconduct beyond specific discovery methods. The appellate court held that sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize sanctions but must be read in conjunction with other provisions of the Act.The Supreme Court of California reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that the trial court did have the authority to impose monetary sanctions under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 for the City’s pattern of discovery abuse. The Supreme Court clarified that these sections provide general authority to sanction discovery misuse, including systemic abuses not covered by specific discovery method provisions. View "City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP" on Justia Law