Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant bank sued Appellees, a corporation and its members, after loans granted to Appellees went into default and Appellees transferred certain property into a trust. After a jury rendered its verdicts, the circuit court (1) granted foreclosure against the property securing the debts, (2) dismissed Appellant's claim to avoid the transfer of one of the properties in the trust and ruled that the deed of another property in the trust was void, and (3) denied Appellant's various post-trial motions. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded on direct appeal and affirmed on cross-appeal, holding (1) the circuit court erred in submitting Appellant's foreclosure and fraudulent-transfer claims to the jury because they were equitable in nature; and (2) the circuit court properly granted Appellant's motion for a directed verdict on Appellee's abuse-of-process claim. Remanded. View "Nat'l Bank of Ark. v. River Crossing Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2005, plaintiffs, residents of Puerto Rico, contracted with defendants, Florida corporations, to purchase condominiums to be built in Florida, and submitted earnest money. Because of the financial crisis, the units were not completed and defendant terminated the agreements. Plaintiffs sued for return of the earnest money. The district court dismissed, finding the defendants did not have minimum contacts with Puerto Rico necessary to establish jurisdiction. The First Circuit vacated and remanded, noting that there certain contacts that could establish jurisdiction that were not adequately addressed at trial.View "Carreras v. PMG Collins LLC" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the mortgage plaintiff carried on her New York house. In 2001, WaMu acquired the note and mortgage and then assigned it to Fannie Mae. Thereafter, plaintiff's home went into foreclosure, WaMu failed, and the FDIC became its receiver. In 2009, plaintiff brought this action against the FDIC, alleging that WaMu "owned and/or serviced the mortgage," and that it engaged in wrongful conduct in the foreclosure's aftermath. The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing. Plaintiff appealed and the FDIC argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because plaintiff's notice of appeal was untimely. The court held that the district court's order ran afoul of Rule 4(a)(5)(C), which limited any extensions to thirty days, meaning that the last permissible day would have been the day before plaintiff filed her notice. The court agreed with plaintiff that the Rule 4(a)(5)(C) time limit was a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar, and that the FDIC forfeited its timeliness objection. The court reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Youkelsone v. FDIC" on Justia Law

The company imported plasma flat panel televisions, made or assembled in Mexico, between 2003, and 2005 that were liquidated as dutiable under subheading 8528.12.72 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule at a rate of five percent. The company claimed that the televisions should be treated as duty-free under the North American Free Trade Agreement. After filing protests with United States Customs and Border Protection, the company filed in the Court of International Trade, arguing that its protest was denied or deemed denied under 19 U.S.C. 1515(a) because Customs had taken more than two years to act on its protest, or under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i). The Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, interpreting 1515(a) to impose neither automatic allowance nor automatic denial of a protest, and concluding that jurisdiction was therefore not proper under 1581(a) or (i). The Court noted that, to establish jurisdiction, the company could file for accelerated disposition under 19 U.S.C. 1515(b) and wait for a maximum of 30 days. The Federal Circuit affirmed, View "Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

After Dorothy Leighton failed to pay taxes on her property and the Town of Blue Hill recorded a tax collector's lien certificate on the property, the Town filed a complaint against Leighton for forcible entry and detainer (FED), seeking possession of the property and costs. The district court entered judgment in Leighton's favor. The superior court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to issue a writ of possession in favor of the Town. On appeal, Leighton contended that the Town was required, as a matter of law, to prove that it held current title to the property in the FED action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the Town produced evidence that it held title superior to Leighton by virtue of the statutorily-foreclosed tax lien mortgage on the property, the Town presented sufficient evidence that it was entitled to possession of the property. View "Town of Blue Hill v. Leighton" on Justia Law

In 1999 plaintiff pled guilty to making false statements while working on a project funded by the Federal Highway Administration (18 U.S.C. 2, 1014, and 1020). The agreement prohibited plaintiff from participating in any FHWA-funded project for a year. Plaintiff challenged Puerto Rico agencies' subsequent actions. The parties negotiated settlements; plaintiff entered into an agreement allowing it to bid on FHWA projects. Puerto Rico then enacted Law 458, which prohibits award of government contracts to any party convicted of a crime constituting fraud, embezzlement, or misappropriation of public funds and requires rescission of any contract with a party convicted of a specified offense. The statute states that it does not apply retroactively. One agency cancelled plaintiff's successful bids, another withdrew its consent to the settlement. The district court rejected claims of violation of the federal Contracts Clause and breaches of contract under Puerto Rico law. The First Circuit affirmed with respect to the constitutional claim. Any breach of the settlement agreements did not violate the Contracts Clause, even if committed in an attempt to unlawfully enforce Law 458 retroactively; defendants have not impaired plaintiff's ability to obtain a remedy for a demonstrated breach. Given the stage of the litigation, the district court should have retained the breach of contract claims. View "Redondo Constr. Corp. v. Izquierdo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a supplier of outdoor power equipment, gave defendant, a disttributer of such equipment, as well as of irrigation equipment, a distributor agreement with a multi-state territory. After about four years, plaintiff provided notice of termination and shifted sales to another distributor. Defendant was in significant debt, its lenders had refused to loan it any more money. Defendant is now out of business. During the contract period, defendant also distributed products for other companies. Plaintiff claimed that defendant owed for products purchased. The district court ruled in favor of plaintiff on the breach of contract claim and rejected defendant's claims of wrongful termination and that the new distributor improperly induced plaintiff to terminate. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Rejecting a Connecticut Franchise Act claim, the court noted that defendant failed to show that more than 50 percent of its business resulted from its relationship with plaintiff. The district court properly awarded interest and rejected claims of unjust enrichment and tortious interference. View "Echo, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Irrigation, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, sued by a competitor and by consumers for unfair trade practices, false and misleading advertising, and deceptive labeling, among other claims, sought indemnity and defense costs from its insurer. The insurer claimed that the suit fell within an exclusion for "antitrust violations, price fixing, price discriminations, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and/or monopolies." The district court ruled in favor of the insurer. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that the policy headings were not determinative and that the paragraph at issue clearly excluded coverage. View "Welch Foods, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins.Co. of Pittsburgh" on Justia Law

Factors purchase accounts receivable to assume garment manufacturers' risk with respect to amounts owed by retailer. A manufacturer typically cannot make sales to retailers for which factors decline to assume the risk. Factors determine the terms and conditions, including the discount rate at which they purchase receivables, payment terms required of retailers, and whether purchases by particular retailers will be financed. Plaintiff, a major discount clothing retailer had sub-par performance and declining sales for two years. Factors declined to extend credit, which caused increased costs and decreased profitability until plaintiff filed for bankruptcy. The trustee filed suit under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and New York law, alleging that factors engaged in "cartel-like behavior," unlawfully exchanged information, and entered into illegal agreements in secretive weekly meetings and telephone conversations to minimize their risks and cost of doing business, maintain and stabilize pricing structures for factoring services; and stabilize their respective market shares. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding no direct evidence of agreement between the factors or of parallel behavior. View "Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc." on Justia Law

Hackers breached the security of the database for the grocery store where plaintiffs shop. The district court determined that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Maine law for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and failure to notify customers. Although the court concluded that plaintiffs adequately alleged breach of implied contract, negligence, and violation of the unfair practices portion of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, it dismissed those claims because alleged injuries were too unforeseeable and speculative to be cognizable under Maine law. The First Circuit affirmed in part, but reversed dismissal of the negligence and implied contract claims. Mitigation damages are available under those claims, for card replacement costs and credit insurance. View "In Re: Hannaford Bros Co. Cust" on Justia Law