Recently in Contract Law Category

District court's grant of defendant-union's motion to compel arbitration and denial of plaintiff's petition for declaratory judgment is affirmed where: 1) the Union neutrality agreement at issue was not void ab initio; and 2) the arbitration clause of the agreement remained in effect.     

Read South Bay Boston Mgmt., Inc. v. Unite Here, Local 26, No. 09-1081

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided November 12, 2009

Judges

Before: Boudin, Lipez, and Gajarsa, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Gajarsa, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Gregory C. Keating, John D. Doran and Ronald S. Allen

For Appellee:  Paul L. More, Michael T. Anderson

In plaintiff's breach of contract action against defendants involving a town's exercise of its statutory right of first refusal (ROFR) to purchase plaintiff's forest land and subsequent assignment of its right to a nonprofit conservation organization, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the liquidated damages provision applies to defendants, as the holder of an ROFR must meet all of the terms and conditions of the offer, including subsidiary terms such as the liquidated damages clause at issue; 2) the liquidated damages provision is enforceable; 3) district court's summary judgment with respect to a Chapter 93A claim, the business-to-business provisions of the consumer protection statute, was properly granted to defendants as Chapter 93A is not applicable where a nonprofit defendant is acting in furtherance of its core mission; 4) plaintiff's challenge to the district court's conclusion that she did not plead a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in her complaint is rejected; and 5) plaintiff's remaining claims are rejected as meritless.   

Read Kunelius v. Town of Stow, No. 08-2393

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided November 9, 2009

Judges

Before:  Torruella, Howard, and Lipez, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Howard, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Michael C. McLaughlin

For Appellee:  Richard A. Oetheimer,  Dahlia S. Fetouh and Goodwin Procter LLP

In plaintiff's case against its competitor, involved in the life sciences equipment market, for unfair competition arising from hiring of plaintiff's employee, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court had proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims; 2) court did not err in refusing to dismiss the claims against defendants in Rhode Island for improper venue, nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for transfer of venue; 3) defendants have failed to demonstrate that the non-competition provision in the Employee Agreement is unenforceable, and as such, defendant's argument that they could not have interfered with the Employment Agreement fails; 4) defendant need not have shown that either the employee nor defendant used plaintiff's trade secrets, as disclosure or acquisition is sufficient to constitute misappropriation, subjecting defendant to liability for actual loss and unjust enrichment; 5) viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence supports the damage award; and 6) district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings as defendant failed to preserve some of its claims and failed to adequately develop others. 

Read Nihon Kohden America, Inc. v. Astro-Med, Inc., No. 08-2334

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island

Decided October 22, 2009

Judges

Before: Howard, and Lipez, Circuit Judges, and Woodcock, District Judge

Opinion by Woodcock, District Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  E.P. Michael Karcis, Mark A. McLean, McLean & McLean LLP, Bruce W. Gladstone, and Cameron & Mittleman LLP

For Appellee:  Stacey P. Nakasian, Duffy & Sweeney, Ltd., Craig M. Scott

In condemnation proceedings involving a 34 acre parcel used by the Federal Aviation Administration for aircraft navigation, the district court's judgment is affirmed where the district court: 1) did not abuse its discretion in excluding defendant's own testimony when the court had excluded similar testimony by defendant's expert; 2) did not err in holding that the "before and after" method was appropriate in valuing the property, assuming a partial taking; and 3) did not err in submitting to the jury unity of use. Defendant's remaining contentions were without merit.       

Read US v. Piza-Blondet, No. 08-2263 

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Decided September 11, 2009

Judges

Before:  Boudin, Seyla, and Dyk, Circuit Judges.   
Opinion: Dyk, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

For Appellant:  Paul E. Harrison, Francisco Diez and J. Wayne Mumphrey.

For Appellee:  Aaron P. Avila, Attorney, U.S. Dep't of Justice, John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General and Jeffrey M. Tapick, Attorney, U.S. Dep't of Justice.

In a civil action involving sinking of a recreational boat, the district court's judgment is affirmed where the district court did not err: 1) in finding defendant had no obligation to discover defects of the boat; 2) in finding defendant not responsible for the disabled automatic bilge pump; 3) in making various other factual findings; and 4) in ruling that the contract between Picchione and PJM did not provide for indemnification on these facts.     

Read N. Ins. Co. of NY v. Point Judith Marina, No. 08-2156

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United State District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Decided August 27, 2009

Judges

Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Torruella, Circuit Judge, and Ebel, Of The Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.     
Opinion by Torruella, Circuit Judge.

Counsel

For Appellants: Frederick A. Lovejoy, Lovejoy & Associates

For Appellee:  Michael J. Rauworth, Carl E. Fumarola and Cetrulo & Capone LLP.

In a dispute involving a set of contracts between four corporations, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and calculation of damages where: 1) proper construction of the Program Agreement and the Insurance Policy does not allow defendant to unilaterally cancel individual insurance policies, and any existing coverage would survive termination of the Program Agreement, as the language of the Agreement is unambiguous; 2) the continuation proviso in the Finance Agreement would be rendered meaningless under defendant's reading, and when general language is in conflict with more specific language, the specific language controls; and 3) plaintiff's claim that defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing fails because under New York law, it is duplicative of a breach of contract claim.   

Read Am. Lease Ins. Agency Corp. v. Balboa Capital Corp., No. 08-2414

 Appellate Information

Appeal from the United State District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Decided August 26, 2009

Judges

Before Torruella, Circuit Judge, Tashima, of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.    
Opinion by Torruella, Circuit Judge.

Counsel

For Appellant:  James C. Donnelly, Jr., Michael R. Christy and Mirick, O'Connell, DeMallie & Lougee, LLP.

For Appellee:  Alan A. Heller, Heller, Horowitz & Feit, P.C.

District court judgment holding that plaintiff was equitably estopped from pursuing its claim for reimbursement of deductibles related to a class action settlement is affirmed where the: 1) the court properly found that plaintiff's course of conduct in settling the class action was unreasonable and misleading; 2) defendant reasonably believed that its contribution to the settlement fund would absolve it of all liability; and 3) defendant suffered a cognizable detriment through that reliance as it will now be expected to make additional payments.    

Read American Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. v. York County, No. 08-2439

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine.
Decided August 5, 2009

Judges
Before Howard, Selya and Ebel, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Selya, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: David D. Dowd.

For Appellee: Thomas C. Newman.

In a breach of contract action, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in finding plaintiff's choice of its home forum to be undeserving of heightened deference; 2) the court properly found that Israel is an adequate alternative forum as its courts address the sort of breach of contract claim asserted in this case and defendant is an Israeli citizen amenable to service there; and 3) the court did not abuse its discretion in applying the public and private interest factors and reasonably concluding that they strongly favored Israel as the more convenient and judicially efficient forum.    

Read Interface Partners International Ltd. v. Hananel, No. 08-1983

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Decided August 5, 2009

Judges
Before Torruella, Siler, and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Torruella, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Andrew H. Schapiro.

For Appellee: Lawrence G. Green.

In a medical malpractice action, district court judgment is affirmed where the forum selection clause contained in two preoperative consent forms signed by plaintiff was mandatory and thus the Commonwealth Court of First Instance was the exclusive venue for any claims against the hospital. The nature of the instant action does not preclude enforcement of the forum selection clause, nor is the clause invalid for fraud, overreaching, or violating public policy.    

Read Rivera v. Centro Médico de Turabo, Inc., No. 07-2657

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
Decided: July 31, 2009

Judges
Before Torruella, Lipez, and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Seth A. Erbe.

For Appellee: Heidi Rodriguez.

District court judgment for plaintiff finding that the settlement agreement between the parties was valid and binding is affirmed where: 1) the settlement agreement was a valid contract between the parties; 2) the settlement agreement compromised all commission-related disputes between the parties; and 3) defendant did not adequately raise a claim that the settlement was infected with "dolo," as defendant's attorney was experienced and accomplished and failed to allege sufficient colorable bad faith on the part of plaintiff. Denial of plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant's suit was neither obstinate nor frivolous under the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure; and 2) a review of the record reveals no basis for finding a FRCP 11 (b) violation as there is no evidence that defendant's claims were brought for an improper purpose, rose to the level of being frivolous, or made unsupportable factual allegations. 

Read Citibank Global Markets v. Hernandez, No. 08-1533

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
Decided July 17, 2009

Judges
Before Lipez, Hansen, and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Howard, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Plaintiff: Néstor M. Méndez Gómez, Janitza M. García-Marrero and Pietrantoni Mendez & Alvarez LLP.

For Defendant: Rubén T. Nigaglioni, Nigaglioni & Ferraiuoli Law Offices, PSC.