Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves BioPoint, Inc., a life sciences consulting firm, which accused Catapult Staffing, LLC, and Andrew Dickhaut of misappropriating trade secrets, confidential business information, and engaging in unfair trade practices. BioPoint alleged that Catapult, with the help of Dickhaut and Leah Attis (a former BioPoint employee and Dickhaut's fiancée), used BioPoint's proprietary information to recruit candidates and secure business from BioPoint's clients, including Vedanta and Shire/Takeda.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts handled the initial proceedings. The jury found Catapult liable for misappropriating BioPoint's trade secrets concerning three candidates and two clients, and for tortious interference with BioPoint's business relationship with one candidate. The jury awarded BioPoint $312,000 in lost profits. The judge, in a subsequent bench trial, found Catapult liable for unjust enrichment and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law (chapter 93A), awarding BioPoint $5,061,444 in damages, which included treble damages for willful and knowing conduct, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court largely affirmed the lower court's findings but reduced the judge's award by $157,068, as it found that BioPoint could not recover both lost profits and unjust enrichment for the same placement. The court also reversed the district court's imposition of joint-and-several liability on Andrew Dickhaut, ruling that he could not be held liable for profits he did not receive. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine Dickhaut's individual liability. View "BioPoint, Inc. v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

The case involves a pass-through billing scheme orchestrated by Beau Gertz, Mark Blake, SeroDynamics, and LabMed Services (collectively, the Sero Defendants). They made it appear that blood tests conducted at their Colorado lab were performed at a small hospital in Unionville, Missouri, resulting in a $26.3 million profit. The scheme involved billing Blue Cross using the hospital's provider numbers, despite the tests not being conducted there. Blue Cross paid the hospital $18,053,015 for these tests. The Sero Defendants were found liable for fraud, tortious interference with contract, civil conspiracy, and money had and received.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri oversaw the trial. After five days of evidence, the jury found the Sero Defendants liable and awarded Blue Cross $18,053,015 in compensatory damages and $1.9 million in punitive damages against each of the four Sero Defendants. The Sero Defendants appealed, raising multiple claims of error, including the exclusion of their lead counsel from delivering closing arguments and the admission of certain evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgments, finding no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of lead counsel from closing arguments due to repeated misconduct. The court also upheld the admission of a portion of an audit report, finding it relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of fraud and tortious interference, noting that the Sero Defendants had actual knowledge of the contract between Putnam and Blue Cross and intentionally interfered with it. The court also upheld the jury's award of damages and punitive damages, finding no miscarriage of justice.In conclusion, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgments, rejecting all of the Sero Defendants' claims of error. View "RightCHOICE Managed Care v. Labmed Services, LLC" on Justia Law

F.C. Bloxom Company, a Seattle-based distributor of fresh produce, entered into an agreement with Seven Seas Fruit to deliver three loads of onions to Honduras. The onions required phytosanitary certificates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to clear Honduran customs, but the parties did not explicitly discuss who would procure these certificates. Bloxom believed Seven Seas would handle it, based on past practices and vague assurances. However, the onions were shipped without the necessary certificates, leading to their rejection in Honduras and eventual spoilage upon return to the U.S.Seven Seas initiated administrative proceedings under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) when Bloxom refused to pay for the onions. The Secretary of Agriculture ruled in favor of Seven Seas, finding no evidence that Seven Seas had agreed to procure the certificates. Bloxom appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, which granted summary judgment for Seven Seas. The court found that Bloxom had accepted the onions at the Port of Long Beach and did not revoke that acceptance, thus obligating Bloxom to pay for the onions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Bloxom had accepted the onions by shipping them to Honduras and did not revoke this acceptance even after learning the certificates were missing. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Bloxom's request for additional discovery time, as further discovery would not have changed the outcome. The court concluded that Bloxom was liable for the payment under PACA. View "F.C. Bloxom Company v. Tom Lange Company International, Inc." on Justia Law

Davidson Oil Company entered into a fixed-price requirements contract with the City of Albuquerque to supply all of the city's fuel needs for a year. Shortly after the contract was signed, fuel market prices dropped significantly. The city requested a price reduction, which Davidson Oil refused, citing potential losses due to hedge contracts it had entered into to protect against market fluctuations. The city then terminated the contract using a termination for convenience clause, prompting Davidson Oil to sue for breach of contract.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment in favor of Davidson Oil, awarding damages for the value of the hedge contracts. The court found that while the city did not breach the explicit terms of the contract, it violated an implied covenant by terminating the contract in bad faith to secure a better bargain elsewhere.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the City of Albuquerque breached the contract by exercising the termination for convenience clause solely to obtain a better deal from another supplier. The court emphasized that such an action violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the contract. The court also upheld the district court's award of damages, including the hedge contract losses, as incidental damages under the Uniform Commercial Code, finding them to be commercially reasonable and directly resulting from the breach. View "Davidson Oil Company v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

A mortgage company, Approved Mortgage Corporation, initiated two wire transfers, but the instructions for the transactions were altered by a third party. The funds were transferred to Truist Bank, which deposited the funds into an account it had previously flagged as suspicious. The funds were then withdrawn in the form of cashier’s checks. Approved Mortgage sued Truist, seeking damages in the amount of the transfers. The company asserted two claims under the Indiana Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs the rights, duties, and liabilities of banks and their customers with respect to electronic funds transfers, and a common law negligence claim.The district court dismissed the UCC claims due to lack of privity between Approved Mortgage and Truist, and dismissed the negligence claim as preempted by the UCC. The court held that the UCC does not establish an independent remedy and must be read with another section of the UCC, which entitles a sender to a refund only from the bank which received its payment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the UCC claims, agreeing with the lower court that the UCC does not establish an independent remedy and must be read with another section of the UCC. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the negligence claim, holding that to the extent the negligence claim arises from Truist’s issuance of the cashier’s checks after Truist credited the funds to the suspicious account, the claim is not preempted by the UCC. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Approved Mortgage Corporation v. Truist Bank" on Justia Law

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, American Screening, LLC, a Louisiana company, promised buyers that it would ship personal protective equipment (PPE) more quickly than it actually did. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued American Screening, alleging that its shipping policies and practices violated the FTC Act and the Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (MITOR). The company's website contained a shipping policy that stated orders would be processed and shipped within 24-48 hours. However, in practice, it took about six weeks for PPE to be shipped after the customer had purchased it.The district court granted the FTC summary judgment and ordered American Screening to return almost $14.7 million to consumers and permanently enjoined it from advertising or selling PPE. American Screening challenged the district court's ordered remedies on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court rejected American Screening's contention that the court should have considered whether each individual consumer had relied on American Screening's shipping representations and had sustained an injury as a result. The court also disagreed with American Screening's argument that the district court's equitable monetary relief went beyond what was necessary to redress consumers and so amounts to an award of exemplary or punitive damages. The court found that the relief was tailored to ensure that dissatisfied consumers are made whole while also ensuring that American Screening does not have to pay unharmed customers as punishment.Finally, the court rejected American Screening's challenge to the scope of the permanent injunction barring it from advertising or selling PPE. The court agreed with the district court that the egregiousness of American Screening's conduct weighed in favor of the injunction. The court also found that the injunction's effect on American Screening was more modest than its breadth might suggest. View "FTC v. American Screening, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves RSD Leasing, Inc., a Vermont-based corporation that leases trucks to commercial operators. Between 2008 and 2014, RSD purchased forty trucks manufactured by Navistar International Corp. and Navistar, Inc. from a nonparty dealer. These trucks were equipped with an emission-control system known as an exhaust gas recirculation system. RSD alleged that the system caused the trucks to lose power, break down, and damage other engine components. RSD leased the trucks to other entities for four-to-six-year terms and intended to sell them at the end of the lease term. RSD filed a complaint against Navistar alleging violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), among other claims.In the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, Navistar moved for summary judgment on the VCPA claim, arguing that RSD is not a “consumer” under the VCPA and is therefore barred from recovery. The district court granted summary judgment on the VCPA claim, reasoning that RSD did not qualify as a consumer under the VCPA because it purchased the trucks for resale in the ordinary course of its business. RSD appealed to the Second Circuit, which certified the question of whether RSD qualified as a consumer under the VCPA to the Vermont Supreme Court.The Vermont Supreme Court concluded that RSD is not a consumer under the VCPA. The court found that RSD's intent at the time it purchased the trucks was to lease them out and, after each lease term expired, sell them. The court held that the trucks were purchased for resale in the ordinary course of RSD’s business. Therefore, RSD did not qualify as a consumer under the VCPA. The court answered the certified question from the Second Circuit in the negative. View "RSD Leasing, Inc. v. Navistar International Corporation and Navistar, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves Commerzbank AG, a German bank, and U.S. Bank, N.A., an American bank. Commerzbank sued U.S. Bank, alleging that it had failed to fulfill its duties as a trustee for residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) that Commerzbank had purchased. The case revolved around three main issues: whether Commerzbank could bring claims related to trusts with "No Action Clauses"; whether Commerzbank's claims related to certificates held through German entities were timely; and whether Commerzbank could bring claims related to certificates it had sold to third parties.The district court had previously dismissed Commerzbank's claims related to trusts with No Action Clauses, granted judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on the timeliness of Commerzbank's claims related to the German certificates, and denied Commerzbank's claims related to the sold certificates. Commerzbank appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions on the timeliness of the German certificate claims and the denial of the sold certificate claims. However, it vacated the district court's dismissal of Commerzbank's claims related to trusts with No Action Clauses and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that Commerzbank's failure to make pre-suit demands on parties other than trustees could be excused in certain circumstances where these parties are sufficiently conflicted. View "Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A motor vehicle manufacturer, General Motors LLC (GM), sought to terminate its franchise agreement with Mall Chevrolet, Inc., a successful car dealership in New Jersey, after discovering that the dealership had submitted false warranty claims for vehicle repairs. GM also intended to recoup the amounts it paid in disputed warranty claims through a chargeback process. In response, Mall Chevrolet sued GM under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act to prevent the termination of the franchise agreement and the chargebacks. However, the dealership's claims did not survive summary judgment.The District Court found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact – the dealership did submit false claims for warranty repairs – and GM was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of the appealed claims. The dealership then appealed the District Court’s summary-judgment rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The court found that GM had good cause to terminate the franchise agreement because Mall Chevrolet had materially breached the contract by submitting false claims for warranty work. The court also found that the dealership's remaining statutory claims were barred by the defense provided in the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, which allows a franchisor to avoid liability for any claim under the Act if the franchisee has not substantially complied with the franchise agreement. View "Mall Chevrolet Inc v. General Motors LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Private Jet Services Group, LLC (PJS), a private aircraft booking agent, and Tauck, Inc., a provider of domestic and international guided tours. The parties had entered into an "Air Charter Services Blanket Purchase Agreement" (BPA) in January 2018, which established the terms under which Tauck would book and pay for air transportation for the New Zealand portion of its Australia and New Zealand tours. In May 2018, they executed a Statement of Work (SOW) that required Tauck to guarantee a minimum of fifty tours per year and to pay PJS an agreed-upon sum for each "missed" tour. The SOW also included a force majeure clause that protected PJS from delays, losses, or damages caused in whole or in part by force majeure events, including epidemics and acts of civil or military authority.The dispute arose when the COVID-19 pandemic prevented Tauck from conducting tours in New Zealand. After Tauck cancelled its remaining 2020 tours, PJS sued Tauck in the New Hampshire federal court alleging a breach of contract. Tauck responded by invoking the doctrines of impossibility and frustration of purpose to excuse performance of its obligations under the contracts. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the count relating to the 2020 tour season, which the district court denied without prejudice. The district court then certified a question to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire regarding the interpretation of the force majeure clause and its impact on the common law defenses of impossibility, impracticability, and frustration of commercial purpose.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the common law contract defenses of impossibility, impracticability, and frustration of commercial purpose are so fundamentally related to contract formation and purpose that they remain viable unless expressly waived. Therefore, a force majeure clause that protects only one party to a contract should not be deemed, in and of itself, a relinquishment of the other party’s right to interpose those common law defenses. The case was remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings. View "Private Jet Services Group, LLC v. Tauck, Inc." on Justia Law