Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners were defrauded by a now-defunct corporation that sold them long-term health care and estate planning services they never received. Unable to obtain compensation directly from the corporation, petitioners secured a federal bankruptcy court judgment against the corporation and applied for restitution from the Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund. The Secretary of State, who administers the Fund, denied their applications, leading petitioners to file a verified petition in the superior court for an order directing payment from the Fund. The superior court granted the petition, and the Secretary appealed.The superior court found that the bankruptcy court judgment was a qualifying judgment for compensation under the Fund. The court noted that the complaint contained allegations of fraud and requested a judgment finding the elements of fraud under California law were satisfied. The superior court also found that the administrative record contained ample evidence supporting the bankruptcy court’s default judgment against the corporation for fraud.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court’s final judgment, which expressly adjudged petitioners as victims of intentional misrepresentation, met the Fund’s requirement for a judgment based on fraud. The court affirmed the superior court’s judgment regarding petitioners' entitlement to payment from the Fund. However, it reversed and remanded the case for the superior court to specify the amount the Secretary shall pay each petitioner, as the original order did not account for the statutory limit of $50,000 per claimant and the need to consider spouses as a single claimant. View "Alves v. Weber" on Justia Law

Barry and Jacklynn Graham hired Bradshaw Renovations, LLC to renovate their home. They agreed on a contract with an initial estimate of $136,168.16, which was later revised to $139,168.16. The contract included provisions for revising estimates and required written approval for changes. Throughout the project, Bradshaw sent invoices that varied from the initial estimate, leading to the Grahams' concerns about billing practices. After paying $140,098.79, the Grahams disputed a final invoice of $18,779.15, leading to a legal dispute.The Iowa District Court for Polk County held a jury trial, which found in favor of the Grahams on their breach of contract and consumer fraud claims, awarding them $16,000 and $40,000 respectively. The court denied Bradshaw's claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Bradshaw's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were also denied. The court awarded attorney fees to the Grahams for their consumer fraud claim.The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict, the district court's denial of Bradshaw's posttrial motions, and the dismissal of Bradshaw's equitable claims. It also affirmed the attorney fee award but remanded for determination of appellate attorney fees.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the Grahams did not present substantial evidence of consumer fraud as defined by Iowa Code section 714H.3(1). The court reversed the district court's ruling on the consumer fraud claim and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bradshaw's unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims, as these were covered by the written contract. The court also upheld the $16,000 jury award for the breach of contract claim. View "Bradshaw Renovations, LLC v. Graham" on Justia Law

Tina McPherson purchased a car from Suburban Ann Arbor, a Michigan car dealership, in July 2020. She was misled into believing she had been approved for financing, paid a $2,000 down payment, and drove the car home. Later, she was informed that the financing had fallen through and was given the option to sign a new contract with worse terms or return the car. McPherson refused the new terms, and Suburban repossessed the car and kept her down payment and fees. McPherson sued Suburban, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection laws.A federal jury found Suburban liable for statutory conversion under Michigan law and violations of the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act, among other claims. The jury awarded McPherson $15,000 in actual damages, $23,000 for the value of the converted property, and $350,000 in punitive damages. The district court denied McPherson's request for treble damages but awarded her $418,995 in attorney’s fees, $11,212.61 in costs, and $6,433.65 in prejudgment interest, totaling $824,641.26. McPherson appealed the denial of treble damages and the amount of attorney’s fees awarded, while Suburban cross-appealed the fee award as excessive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying treble damages, as the $350,000 punitive damages already served to punish and deter Suburban's conduct. The court also found that the district court properly calculated the attorney’s fees, considering the market rates and the skill of McPherson’s attorneys. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "McPherson v. Suburban Ann Arbor, LLC" on Justia Law

Kenneth Tilley sought financing from Malvern National Bank (MNB) for a real estate development project in 2009 and 2010, totaling $350,000. Tilley claimed MNB engaged in unfair dealings and sued for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), tortious interference, negligence, and fraud. The case has been appealed multiple times, with the Arkansas Supreme Court previously reversing decisions related to Tilley's right to a jury trial.Initially, the Garland County Circuit Court struck Tilley's jury demand, which was reversed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. After remand, the circuit court reinstated a bench trial verdict, citing Act 13 of 2018, which was again reversed by the Supreme Court. On the third remand, MNB moved for summary judgment on all claims. The circuit court granted summary judgment, citing Tilley's reduction of collateral as a material alteration of the agreement, a rationale not argued by MNB. Tilley appealed this decision.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the circuit court did not violate the mandate by considering summary judgment. However, it was reversible error for the circuit court to grant summary judgment based on an unargued rationale. The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on Tilley's ADTPA, tortious interference, and negligence claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Tilley's breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud claims, determining that there were disputed material facts that required a jury trial. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Tilley v. Malvern National Bank" on Justia Law

The case involves Andris Pukke, Peter Baker, and John Usher, who were found liable for violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and a permanent injunction from a prior fraud case. They were involved in a real estate scam, selling lots in a development called "Sanctuary Belize" through deceptive practices. The district court issued an equitable monetary judgment of $120.2 million for consumer redress, imposed an asset freeze, and appointed a receiver.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland found the defendants liable after a bench trial and issued permanent injunctions against them. The court also held them in contempt for violating a prior judgment in a related case, ordering them to pay the same $120.2 million in consumer redress. The defendants appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, except for vacating the monetary judgment to the extent it relied on FTC Act Section 13(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision to maintain the receivership and asset freeze. The court held that the receivership and asset freeze were necessary to effectuate the injunctive relief and ensure that the defendants did not continue to profit from their deceptive practices. The court also found that the contempt judgment supported maintaining the receivership and asset freeze until the judgment was satisfied. The court emphasized the defendants' history of deceptive conduct and the need for a professional receiver to manage and distribute the assets to defrauded consumers. The judgment was affirmed. View "Federal Trade Commission v. Pukke" on Justia Law

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

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

FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. (FXG) filed a lawsuit against Route Consultant, Inc., alleging that the latter company had made nine false or misleading statements about FXG's business practices. FXG contended that these statements were intended to foster discontent between FXG and its contractors, thereby damaging FXG and benefiting Route Consultant. The suit was brought under both the Lanham Act's false advertising provision and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act's statutory disparagement provision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit confirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the case. The court found that FXG had failed to plausibly allege that Route Consultant made a single false or misleading statement. The court emphasized that only statements of fact--not opinions, puffery, or rhetorical hyperbole--are actionable under the false advertising provision of the Lanham Act. Moreover, a plaintiff must plead and prove the literal falsity of the defendant's statement or demonstrate that the statement is misleading. FXG's complaint did not meet these standards.The court also held that FXG's claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act failed for the same reasons as its Lanham Act claim. Thus, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of FXG's lawsuit against Route Consultant. View "FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. v. Route Consultant, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fourth Appellate District Division One of the California Court of Appeal affirmed, with a minor modification, a lower court's decision that Ashford University, LLC and Zovio, Inc. violated California's unfair competition law and false advertising law. Over a decade, the defendants made false and misleading statements to prospective students, committing 1,243,099 violations. The trial court imposed a penalty of $22,375,782, which the defendants challenged as excessive. The appeal court agreed with the defendants that the lower court inadvertently included violations outside the false advertising law's statute of limitations in the penalty calculation. The court reduced the penalty by $933,453. However, the court rejected the defendants' other arguments, including that the penalty should be further reduced because it did not bear a reasonable relationship to the harm proven at trial, violated extraterritoriality principles, and was excessive given the defendants' financial status. The court found the penalty was reasonably related to the harm caused, the defendants could pay the penalty, and the defendants' misconduct emanated from California, so principles of extraterritoriality were not violated. View "People v. Ashford University, LLC" on Justia Law