Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

In this dispute two companies claimed superior interests in a subdivision property. VCS, Inc. performed work on the subdivision as a general contractor and claimed a valid mechanic's lien on the property. Utah Community Bank (UCB) claimed it acquired an interest in the same property by extending a construction loan, secured by a deed of trust, to the subdivision's owner. VCS sued UCB to vindicate its allegedly superior interest in the property. UCB, in response, asserted that VCS's mechanic's lien was not valid as against UCB's interest because VCS failed to record a timely lis pendens. The district court granted summary judgment for UCB. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) VCS's failure to record a timely lis pendens rendered its mechanic's lien void and unenforceable as against UCB; (2) VCS was not entitled to equitable relief under the doctrine of unjust enrichment because it failed to appropriate exhaust its legal remedies; (3) accordingly, the district court did not err in awarding attorney fees to UCB; and (4) likewise, UCB was entitled to its reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal.View "VCS, Inc. v. La Salle Dev., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are minority limited partners in Urban Shopping Centers, L.P., in which defendants acquired a majority interest in 2002. Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary and contractual duties, claiming that, pursuant to the operating agreement, defendants were not to compete with them in business opportunities. They alleged that defendants stopped growing plaintiffs’ business, disregarded partnership agreement terms, and stole plaintiffs’ opportunities. During discovery, plaintiffs moved to compel production of documents concerning business negotiations in which each defendant’s attorney discussed with nonclients liability and obligations as Urban’s general partner and use of a “synthetic partnership” to avoid partnership obligations. Defendants claimed privilege, but plaintiffs argued that, having disclosed legal advice on these subjects with each other outside of any confidential relationship, defendants could not later object that those subjects were privileged. The motion was granted; defendants refused to comply and were held in contempt. The appellate court affirmed. The supreme court reversed, holding that attorney-client privilege had not been waived because the sought-after disclosures had occurred in an extrajudicial context and were not thereafter used by the clients to gain a tactical advantage in litigation. The “subject-matter waiver” doctrine was not shown to be applicable.View "Ctr. Partners, Ltd. v. Growth Head GP, LLC, " on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the good faith requirement of 12A O.S. 2011 section 2-403 extended to third parties and requires that the third party be notified of a debtor's financial condition. The trial court found the interest of Plaintiff-Appellee Bank of Beaver City (Bank) in the livestock of cattle operation and debtor Lucky Moon Land and Livestock, Inc. (Lucky Moon) to be superior to that of another creditor of Lucky Moon, Defendant-Appellant Barretts' Livestock, Inc. (Barretts). The Bank alleged that in 2004 it perfected a security interest in all of Lucky Moon's livestock, including all after-acquired livestock, giving it a superior claim to cattle purchased by Lucky Moon from Barretts to satisfy the debt owed by Lucky Moon to the Bank. Barretts asserted that the Bank did not have priority over it because the Bank was not a good faith secured creditor. The trial court granted the Bank's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Bank's perfected security interest had preference over Barretts' unperfected security interest. Barretts appealed, contending that Bank did not have a superior security interest because: 1) the Bank's security interest never attached; and 2) the Bank had not acted in good faith. The Court of Civil appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Bank sought certiorari, contending that: 1) the case presents an issue of first impression as to when good faith under 12A O.S. 2011 section 2-403 should be determined; 2) Bank's security interest never attached; and 3) the Court of Civil Appeals' decision was inconsistent with a different decision of the Court of Civil Appeals on which the court relied. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that 12A O.S. 2011 section 2-403 did not extend to third parties nor require that the third party be notified of a debtor's financial condition. View "Bank of Beaver City v. Barretts' Livestock, Inc." on Justia Law

Pielet Brothers Scrap Iron and Metal, was founded Arthur Pielet and his brothers shortly after World War II. Arthur sold his interest to his sons in 1986 through an agreement providing for a lifetime payment to him of a “consulting” fee, and, on his death, for a lifetime fee payment to his wife, Dorothy. The agreement was binding on successors and assigns. In 1994, the then- successor company, P.B.S., dissolved, but payments to Arthur continued until 1998, when its successor, MM, had financial difficulties. It filed for bankruptcy in 1999. Litigation began. The trial court awarded Dorothy almost $2 million. In the appellate court, P.B.S. argued the traditional rule that a cause of action that accrued (1998) after dissolution (1994) cannot be brought against a dissolved corporation. The appellate court rejected the argument, holding that Dorothy’s claim could survive, but remanded for determination of whether the companies could be relieved of liability for the fee under a theory of novation. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the claim of breach of contract against P.B.S. could not survive the corporate dissolution. The issue of novation is relevant as to two other successor corporations and required remand.View "Pielet v. Pielet" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether, for purposes of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 16.068, an action for cargo damage against a common carrier, brought under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, relates back to an action for breach of an agreement to settle the cargo-damage claim. The answer depended on whether the cargo-damage claim was, in the words of section 16.068, "wholly based on a new, distinct, or different transaction or occurrence" than the breach-of-settlement claim. A divided court of appeals held that the cargo-damage claim did not relate back and was therefore barred by limitations. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the cargo-damage claim and the breach-of-settlement claim both arose out of the same occurrence, and therefore, the cargo-damage claim was not barred by limitations.View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Daybreak Express, Inc." on Justia Law

Northwest Building Company, LLC (Contractor) performed construction services for Northwest Distributing Co., Inc. (Owner) on a Taco John’s/Good Times facility in Gillette, Wyoming. Contractor brought an action against Owner seeking payment for its services, and Owner counterclaimed. After Contractor’s attorney moved to withdraw, the district court ordered Contractor to find substitute counsel in time for the pretrial conference. When Contractor was unable to find substitute counsel by the deadline, the district court sanctioned it by dismissing its complaint and granting judgment in favor of Owner on its counterclaims. Contractor appealed, raising a number of procedural issues. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Contractor's complaint, and affirmed the lower court's judgment.View "Northwest Building Company, LLC v. Northwest Distributing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant CTE Tech Corp. is a Taiwanese corporation that manufactures battery chargers. Defendant Invacare Corporation is an Ohio corporation that manufactures motorized wheelchairs. CTE agreed to supply Invacare with battery chargers built to Invacare's specifications, which Invacare then sold with its motorized wheelchairs in Oregon and the rest of the United States. Plaintiffs brought this action against CTE after their mother died in a fire allegedly caused by a defect in CTE's battery charger. CTE moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against it on the ground that Oregon lacks personal jurisdiction over it. CTE reasoned that due process would permit an Oregon court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it only if CTE had purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business here. In CTE's view, the fact that it sold its battery chargers to Invacare in Ohio, which sold them together with its wheelchairs in Oregon, was not sufficient to meet that standard. The trial court denied CTE's motion, and the Supreme Court denied CTE's petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to vacate its ruling. CTE then filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. After the Court issued its decision in "J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro," (131 S Ct 2780 (2011)), the Court granted CTE's petition for certiorari, vacated our order, and remanded the case to the Oregon Court for further consideration. On remand, the Oregon Court issued an alternative writ of mandamus to the trial court directing it to vacate its order denying CTE's motion to dismiss or show cause for not doing so. The trial court declined to vacate its order, and the parties briefed the question whether, in light of Nicastro, Oregon courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over CTE. Upon review, the Oregon Supreme Court held that they may and accordingly dismissed the alternative writ.View "Willemsen v. Invacare Corporation" on Justia Law

In a derivative action on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company, plaintiff accused certain HP directors of committing waste and breaching the duty of care in connection with the August 2010 termination of then-CEO, Hurd. Plaintiff contends that Hurd was not entitled to, and did not deserve, any severance upon his termination but that the directors granted Hurd a severance package estimated to be worth $40 million or more. Plaintiff also challenged the lack of a long term CEO succession plan as a breach of the directors’ duty of care. The chancellor dismissed. Under Rule 23.1, a stockholder must either make a demand on the board to instigate the legal action that the stockholder seeks to bring on the corporation’s behalf or allege with particularity why such a demand is excused. Plaintiff did not to make a presuit demand and did not adequately allege a basis to excuse presuit demand.View "Zucker v. Andreessen" on Justia Law

GRT and Marathon are engaged in attempting to convert methane gas into fuel. They entered into interrelated agreements, including a Securities Purchase Agreement (Marathon purchased $25 million of GRT’s stock), mutual licensing agreements, and a Cooperative Development Agreement, governing collaboration to develop gas-to-fuels technology. Marathon built a multi-million dollar “Demonstration Facility” to test the technology on a large scale and a smaller research facility (Pilot Unit). Under the Development Agreement, GRT obtained access the Demonstration Facility and the ability to modify the Facility, to expire on December 31, 2012. The Facility began operations in 2008. Marathon executed a run campaign and shared data with GRT. In November 2009, Marathon decided to permanently close the Facility because of operational difficulties. Marathon followed procedures prescribed by the Agreement, gave notice, and extended GRT the right to acquire the Facility. GRT did not exercise that right. Although the Facility is currently closed, the Pilot Unit is operational, and both parties continue to test there. GRT claimed breach of contract. The chancellor found that the Development Agreement is not ambiguous and does not impose an affirmative duty on Marathon to operate the Facility through December, 2012, but provides GRT protection in other ways that would be internally inconsistent with such an affirmative duty.View "GRT, Inc. v. Marathon GTF Tech., Ltd." on Justia Law

Dentist purchased dental practice management software from Company to aid his patient data requirement. The contract between Dentist and Company limited Dentist's remedies for damages in tort caused by defects in the Company's software. Although Company warned Dentist to back up his patient data, Dentist's patient data was lost when installing the software. Dentist sued Company under several theories, and the district court granted Company's motion for summary judgment. Dentist appealed only the order granting summary judgment on his tort claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the limitation of liabilities clause in the contract was enforceable, as provisions in software contracts allocating the risk of such a loss to the consumer are enforceable.View "Blaisdell v. Dentrix Cental Sys., Inc." on Justia Law