Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Licensees entered into a licensing agreement with Safeblood Tech for the exclusive rights to market patented technology overseas. After learning that they could not register the patents in other countries, Licensees sued Safeblood for breach of contract and sued Safeblood, its officers, and patent inventor for fraud, constructive fraud, and violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ark. Code 4-88-101 to -115. The district court dismissed the fraud claims at summary judgment. The remaining claims proceeded to trial and a jury found for Licensees, awarding them $786,000 in contract damages and no damages for violations of the ADTPA. The district court awarded Licensees $144,150.40 in prejudgment interest. The Eighth Circuit reversed as to the common-law fraud claim and the award of prejudgment interest, but otherwise affirmed. Licensees produced sufficient evidence that the inventor made a false statement of fact; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it gave the jury a diminution-in-product-value instruction; and Licensees waived their inconsistent-verdict argument. View "Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Germain and GM Enterprises, filed suit against defendants, HCH and Metropolitan, alleging breach of contract claims related to an option to purchase based on the assignment of a lease agreement. The district court dismissed the complaint because plaintiffs were precluded from bringing the action where a state court already had decided the issue underlying the claims alleged in their federal complaint. As a preliminary matter, the court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar plaintiffs' claims where their complaint alleged injuries caused by breach of contract and related to torts. Turning to section 13 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, the court believed that the Arkansas Supreme Court would hold that the state-court judgment in this case was sufficiently firm to be considered final for purposes of issue preclusion; based on the state court's conclusion and the terms of the subordination agreement, Germain was not entitled to specific performance of the option and dismissal of the federal declaratory-judgment action was appropriate; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees to defendants. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Germain Real Estate v. HCH Toyota" on Justia Law

NanoMech, researcher and developer of nanotechnologies, filed suit against defendant, a former employee, for breach of a noncompete agreement. On appeal, NanoMech challenged the district court's judgment on the pleadings for defendant. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the noncompete agreement was unenforceable under Arkansas law where any error in the district court's decision to convert defendant's motion to dismiss into a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings was harmless; under Arkansas law, a noncompete agreement must be valid as written; and a blanket prohibition on defendant's ability to seek employment of any kind with an employer in the nanotechnology industry anywhere in the world is overbroad, unreasonable, and therefore unenforceable. View "NanoMech, Inc. v. Suresh" on Justia Law

Lincoln, a meat-packing company, and Puretz, an investor, formed Hastings, an Illinois LLC, to bid on cattle-processing plants being sold at a bankruptcy auction. Puretz was to contribute 70% of acquisition and start-up capital; Lincoln 30%, plus management and 40,000 head of cattle per year. Additional details about financing and operations were to be negotiated. To bid, Hastings had to deposit $250,000. Puretz contributed $150,000; Lincoln contributed $100,000. Hastings successfully bid at $3,900,000. Negotiations regarding operations and financing deteriorated. Hastings closed the purchase. Lincoln refused to contribute additional funds and dissociated from Hastings. Under Illinois law, if a member dissociates and the LLC does not dissolve, the LLC must purchase the dissociating member’s distributional interest. Lincoln sought a determination of fair value. The district court held that Lincoln and Puretz each held a 50% interest in Hastings, that the value of Hastings on the dissociation date was $3,900,000, and that Lincoln’s only contribution was $100,000, rejecting Lincoln’s assertions that its identification of the opportunity, business plan, and “sweat equity” had “substantial value.” The court concluded that the value of Lincoln’s interest was $1,950,000, less 30% that Lincoln failed to contribute ($1,170,000), plus return of $100,000, and awarded Lincoln $880,000. The Eighth Circuit reversed. Lincoln and Puretz contemplated that any capital contributed to Hastings would be returned in proportion to their contributions before profits or losses generated by operations were divided equally. Because Lincoln did not make its 30% contribution to capital, it was not entitled to a 30% distribution. View "Lincoln Provision, Inc. v. Aron Puretz" on Justia Law

Debtors and Starion entered into loan transactions. The promissory notes and mortgages provided that the Debtors were liable for Starion’s attorney fees and costs of collections. The Debtors also executed personal guarantees. Defaults resulted in a 2012 Workout Agreement between Starion and the Debtors, who consented to entry of judgments against them to secure their personal guarantees. Based upon properly filed confessions of judgment, executed under the Agreement, a North Dakota state court entered judgments against Debtors for $2,078,034.26 and $1,000,000.00, plus interest. Debtors filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition. The Debtors’ Second Amended Plan of Reorganization stated: Debtors agree to pay Starion’s allowable attorney’s fees and costs associated with both Debtors’ bankruptcy proceedings including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees, consulting, appraisal, filing fees, late fees … as provided in the Plan. The Plan was confirmed. Later the Debtors refused to pay requested appraisal and engineering costs and attorneys’ fees. Starion requested that the bankruptcy court compel payment of $125,014.64 based upon the Plan and 11 U.S.C. 506(b). The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the Debtors. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed, noting that the obligation has appeared throughout the long documented history of the relationship. View "Starion Fin. v. McCormick" on Justia Law

Ibson and her family were insured by UHS through a policy available to her to as a member of her law firm. Due to an error, UHS began informing Ibson’s medical providers that Ibson and her family no longer had insurance coverage. Although UHS eventually paid the claims it should have paid all along, Ibson sued, raising state law claims of breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith, and seeking punitive damages. UHS responded that Ibson’s claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and barred by the policy’s three-year contractual limitations period. The district court agreed and entered summary. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, agreeing that Ibson’s state law claims are preempted under ERISA, but rejecting entry of summary judgment on the basis of the three-year contractual limitations period. View "Ibson v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Stonebridge appealed the district court's judgment in favor of Trip Mate, holding that Stonebridge breached an implied amendment to the parties' Managing General Agent Agreement that was incorporated into the Termination Agreement they executed in 2009. The court reversed the district court's judgment in favor of Trip Mate and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. The court concluded that the district court's comments to the parties regarding their course of dealings were too vague and ambiguous to provide the parties with actual notice that the court amended the pleadings to include the implied amendment theory. The parties did not have actual notice of the implied amendment issue or an adequate opportunity to cure the suprise of this issue being added to the case. View "Trip Mate, Inc. v. Stonebridge Casualty Ins., et al." on Justia Law

The Bank filed suit against the Hanna Parties for breach of contract after the Hanna Parties failed to pay the balance due on a loan when it matured. The Hanna Parties counterclaimed, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, deceptive trade practices, and breach of contract by the Bank, and demanding reformation or rescission. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank as to the counterclaims. A jury concluded that the Hanna Parties did not breach the contract and the district court denied the Bank's post-verdict motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the case was properly submitted to a jury, and the Bank is precluded from seeking a judgment as a matter of law, but that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, so the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the Bank's breach-of-contract claims. The court agreed with the district court that the Hanna Parties' counterclaims failed as a matter of law and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Bank as to those claims.View "Bank of America v. JB Hanna, et al." on Justia Law

G&K filed suit against Bill's for breach of contract and sought liquidated damages. Bill's counterclaimed, asserting common-law clams and a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code 4-88-113. A jury found in favor of G&K on the common-law counterclaims but returned a verdict for Bill's on its deceptive trade practices counterclaim, awarding Bill's damages. The district court subsequently awarded G&K attorney's fees and denied Bill's motion for attorney's fees. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $82,766.50 in attorney's fees to G&K where the district court expressly considered G&K's degree of success and reduced its requested award based on time devoted to unsuccessful causes of action; the district court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly finding that the hourly rates claimed by G&K's Little Rock-based attorneys were reasonable; the documentation was sufficient to support the district court's conclusion where the record includes invoices that detail the amount of time spent on this litigation and the activities on which that time was spent; although the district court did not expressly mention all eight of the Chrisco factors, the district court did address several and provided enough explanation for the court to conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court rejected Bill's challenge to the award of attorney's fees to G&K. In light of comments from the Arkansas courts and the absence of mandatory language in section 4-88-113(f), the court agreed with the district court that Bill's was not automatically entitled to an award of fees when it prevailed on a claim under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. However, the court found little explanation for the district court's ruling and remanded for the district court to consider whether Bill's should be awarded a reasonable attorney's fee under section 4-88-113(f). The Act establishes an independent basis for awarding fees and does not restrict awards to a party that prevails in whatever larger litigation involves a claim under the Act. A party who prevails on a cause of action to recover actual damages under the Act is eligible for an award of attorney's fees, even when another party is the prevailing party in the overall action for purposes of Ark. Code Sec. 16-22-308.View "G&K Services Co., Inc. v. Bill's Super Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Sammy Hagar after he published an autobiography in which he alleged that plaintiff had extorted him by claiming she was pregnant with his child. The district court granted summary judgment for Hagar on all of plaintiff's claims. Applying Iowa law, the court concluded that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on the libel per se claim where Hagar's statements are defamatory as a matter of law, plaintiff has shown the existence of a fact issue regarding whether the challenged statements were "of and concerning" her, and the evidence was sufficient to submit the question of substantial truth to the jury. The court also concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the false light invasion of privacy claim where questions of fact exist as to whether the challenged statements were sufficiently publicized. The court agreed with the district court's ruling that, with respect to evidence of emotional distress, plaintiff put forth conclusory statements; the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim where a jury must decide the ultimate issue of breach; and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Hagar's statement's did not deprive plaintiff of the benefits under a negotiated agreement between the parties.View "Doe v. Hagar" on Justia Law