Contracts



[01/11] Rambo Assocs., Inc. v. S. Tama County Cmty. Sch. Dist.
In an action in contract and quasi-contract for services that an architectural and consulting firm rendered to a school district, a judgment on remand finding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover on the quasi-contract claim is affirmed where the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover because the court could not determine with any reasonable certainty what "extra services" it rendered or what their reasonable value was.

[01/10] Exarhos v. Exarhos
A person who sues as a decedent's successor in interest may be held liable for contractual attorney's fees under Civil Code section 1717 in an action commenced and pursued by the alleged successor in interest. Since the alleged successor in interest in this case would have been entitled to an award of attorney's fees if he had prevailed in the action, he is liable for the prevailing defendant's attorney's fees.

[01/10] Cerqueira v. American Airlines, Inc.
In a suit alleging that the removal of the plaintiff from a flight and subsequent denial of re-booking violated his rights to be free of race discrimination in contracting under 42 U.S.C. section 1981, a jury verdict for plaintiff is vacated and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the defendant where: 1) the district court failed to instruct the jury on the statutory permission given to air carriers to remove passengers under 49 U.S.C. section 44902(b); 2) the court otherwise erroneously instructed the jury; and 3) no properly instructed jury could return a verdict against the air carrier, and therefore the district court should have granted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

[01/10] Grife v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.
In an insurance coverage dispute arising from damage to condominiums from Hurricane Wilma, judgment on the pleadings for defendant is affirmed where the plain language of the "Master Deductible" clause in plaintiff's insurance policy excludes coverage for any assessment due to losses that fell within the Condominium Association's master policy deductible.

[01/09] Milburn v. Life Inv. Ins. Co. of Am.
In a dispute over coverage under a Long Term Care Insurance Policy of plaintiff's care at a particular facility, partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of coverage is reversed where the facility at issue does not qualify as a "Nursing Home" under the policy, and thus the insurer did not breach its contract with plaintiff as a matter of law when it denied her request for benefits.

[01/09] Trantina v. US
In a suit brought for a tax refund, summary judgment for the government is affirmed where, because plaintiff did not have any property rights that he could sell under the express terms of a contract to provide insurance services, termination payments made pursuant to the contract were properly characterized as ordinary income, as opposed to capital gains.

[01/09] Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Basell USA Inc.
In a contract case in which the parties agreed that defendant-customer breached the contract at issue with plaintiff-rail carrier, but disagreed as to whether such breach was material and whether it constituted a repudiation, summary judgment for defendant is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in concluding, at the summary judgment stage, that no reasonable fact finder could find that defendant's breach of its volume commitment was a material breach; and 2) the record was not sufficiently developed for consideration of the merits of the parties' arguments as to repudiation.

[01/09] St. Christopher Assocs., L.P. v. US
In a suit against HUD for breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims, arising from HUD's failure to consider plaintiff's request for a rent increase, summary judgment for HUD is affirmed where: 1) a Regulatory Agreement does not expressly, nor by implication, require HUD to consider a rent increase request and, thus, HUD did not breach the agreement by not considering the request; and 2) there was no Fifth Amendment taking by HUD's failure to consider the request.

[01/09] CPL, Inc. v. Fragchem Corp.
In a dispute over payment for a shipment of chemicals, the district court's sua sponte dismissal is reversed where it was improper for the district court to dismiss the lawsuit sua sponte on the grounds of improper venue based on an arbitration agreement between the parties when neither party explicitly or effectively indicated that it would not waive arbitration.

[01/09] Uhl v. Komatsu Forklift Co., Ltd.
In a case challenging the validity of an arbitration award where one of the party-selected arbitrators had previously and occasionally served as co-counsel with the attorney representing the intervening plaintiff in the instant case, a judgment confirming the arbitration award and denying a motion to vacate is affirmed as the relationship did not violate the arbitration agreement or rise to the level of evident partiality.

[01/08] Aten v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
In an insurance coverage dispute, grant of defendant-insurer's motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded for further proceedings regarding whether an exception to a policy exclusion applied. Specifically, plaintiff should be allowed to conduct limited discovery regarding whether subcontractors poured or leveled a basement floor or performed the work which suffered water damage as a result of the improperly graded basement floor.

[01/08] Goulet v. New Penn Motor Express, Inc.
In a suit alleging breach of a labor agreement by an employer and breach of the duty of fair representation by a union, verdicts in favor of defendants are affirmed where: 1) any error in the court's directed verdict in favor of the employer was harmless since wrongly directed verdicts in favor of a party are harmless where the jury's ultimate verdict necessarily defeats the claim against the dismissed party; 2) plaintiff waived any objection to the jury charge; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to support jury findings against the plaintiff.

[01/08] The Pierre Condo. Ass'n v. Lincoln Park West Assocs.
In a suit for property damage allegedly caused during the construction of a high-rise condominium building on an adjacent property, order finding the settlement agreement between plaintiff The Pierre Condominium Association and counterdefendant Case Foundation Company to be in good faith and dismissing Baker/LPWA's counterclaim against Case is affirmed where trial court properly concluded that Baker/LPWA failed to satisfy their burden of proof in showing how the settlement was made through wrongful conduct.

[01/08] Granite Mgmt. Corp. v. US
In a Winstar related government-contract case, a decision following remand finding that plaintiff failed to prove a particular theory of damages is affirmed where: 1) a finding, that federal regulators would not have approved the transfer of "supervisory goodwill" in connection with plaintiff's sale of First Nationwide Bank, was supported by substantial evidence; and 2) thus, plaintiff failed to show that it sustained any injury because the supervisory goodwill was not part of the assets it sold.

[01/08] Blackburn v. Oaktree Capital Mgmt., LLC
In an action seeking damages and declaratory relief in relation to plaintiffs' purchase of membership rights in a golf club, an appeal from an order remanding the case to state court is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Sixth Circuit precedent is overruled to the extent the decisions held that a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c) was reviewable if it was premised on a post-removal amendment to a complaint.

[01/07] United Steelworkers of Am. v. Retirement Income Plan for Hourly-Rated Employees of ASARCO, Inc.
In a union and retirees' action against the owner and operator of a copper smelter plant's retirement plan seeking to compel arbitration of retirees' benefits claims, summary judgment for plaintiffs, denial of defendant's motion to stay, and an award of attorney's fees is affirmed in part and remanded where: 1) the presumption of arbitrability applies in this case; 2) consequently, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the union, as the union's interpretation of the relevant plan documents is at least a reasonable interpretation of the relevant language; 3) a request for arbitration was not untimely; 4) retirees are not excluded from the arbitration procedure; 5) neither the judicial estoppel nor the law of the case doctrines apply to bar the union from opposing defendant's motion to stay; and 6) the fees award was not an abuse of discretion. The matter is remanded for further proceedings on what effect an automatic bankruptcy stay has on the fees award against the employer.

[01/07] Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway
Where an action is brought solely to compel arbitration of contractual disputes between the parties, a party who succeeds in obtaining an order denying the petition to compel arbitration is a prevailing party in the action on the contract even though the merits of the parties' underlying contractual disputes have not yet been resolved, and an order denying a request for costs and attorney's fees under such circumstances is appealable as a "special order after final judgment" under Code of Civil Procedure section 1294(e).

[01/04] Mills v. Foremost Ins. Co.
In case involving dispute over mobile home insurance policy arising from claims submitted after Hurricane Frances, dismissal of plaintiffs' class action complaint is reversed where the district court erred in determining that class action treatment was inappropriate as a matter of law from the face of the complaint.

[12/31] Cyclonaire Corp. v. ISG Riverdale
Order finding that plaintiff's subcontractor's mechanic's lien was invalid for failure to strictly comply with the 90-day written notice period mandated by section 24(a) of the Mechanics Lien Act is affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial court's judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence; and 2) the trial court erred by excluding from evidence internal shipping and invoicing documents, which plaintiff claims would have proved that plaintiff's last date of performance fell within the applicable 90-day period.

[10/25] N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Debis Fin. Servs. Inc.
In an insurer's action to recover monies paid to defendant as an additional payee under a Hull Insurance Policy issued by plaintiff to an insured, dismissal of the action is affirmed where, adopting the district court's waiver analysis, the insurer waived the defense of unseaworthiness.

Return to Main Screen

Practice Area

© 2008 by Mugg & Tang, LLP. All rights reserved. Disclaimer | Site Map

Firm Site ® designed and hosted by Tritiger Media Inc.