Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After seeking a mortgage modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program Plaintiff filed a complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Homeward Residential Inc., claiming breach of contract, unfair debt collection under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and derivative equitable relief. A federal district court dismissed Plaintiff’s action in its entirety. The First Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged that Defendants failed to offer her a mortgage modification in a timely manner and that Plaintiff had sufficiently pled damages for her Chapter 93A claim. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s breach of contract and Chapter 93A claims failed, and therefore, her derivative claim for equitable relief failed as well. View "Young v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Thomas and Frances Frangos (Plaintiffs) secured a loan and pledged their home as collateral to secure a promissory note issued to the lender. Plaintiffs defaulted on the mortgage twice. A foreclosure sale was scheduled, but on the eve of the sale, Plaintiffs filed suit. Plaintiffs sought an injunction permanently barring Bank of America, N.A. and New Penn Financial, LLC (Defendants) from foreclosing, as well as damages premised on an alleged breached of a provision in the mortgage agreement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its judgment. View "Frangos v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

Baskin-Robbins, a Delaware LLC, franchises ice cream stores. Alpenrose, a dairy products manufacturer incorporated in Oregon, is headquartered in Portland. In 1965, the two executed a territorial franchise agreement. Baskin-Robbins then had its principal place of business in California. Negotiations occurred in California. Between 1973 and 1985, the parties amended the Agreement three times; Baskin-Robbins remained in California. All material discussions concerning the amendments took place in Oregon. Around 1998 Baskin-Robbins' headquarters moved to Massachusetts. In 2001 and 2007, Alpenrose sent Baskin-Robbins, in Massachusetts, formal notice of its election to renew. In 2013, Alpenrose informed Baskin-Robbins that it did not intend to renew. The parties began negotiating Alpenrose's transition out of the arrangement. Negotiations stalled. Alpenrose wrote to Baskin-Robbins, stating that it wished to "revoke" its decision not to renew and requested another six-year extension, citing the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code 19.100.180(2)(i). Baskin-Robbins rejected Alpenrose's demands for renewal or compensation, then sought a declaratory judgment in the District of Massachusetts. That court dismissed for want of in personam jurisdiction, stating that "nothing in [the parties'] history . . . suggests that Alpenrose intended to purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting business within Massachusetts." The First Circuit reversed, “the assertion of jurisdiction satisfies both the relatedness and purposeful availment criteria, and the Gestalt factors do not counsel otherwise.” View "Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC v. Alpenrose Dairy, Inc." on Justia Law

This was Defendants’ fourth appeal from a lawsuit in which Plaintiff obtained a $23 million judgment based on an an indemnification clause in an agreement. Plaintiff sought to secure payment on that judgment by bringing suit against Defendants. Defendants then began a series of attempts to evade payment to Plaintiff and to elude the power of the courts. As relevant to this appeal, Defendants violated a preliminary injunction, resulting in a civil contempt order entered by the district court. The contempt order included an escalating fines provision. The First Circuit affirmed the contempt order and remanded with directions to amend the sanction order so that the fines cease to accrue at some total amount. Defendants appealed the revised contempt order issued by the district court, arguing that the underlying preliminary injunction expired by its own terms so the district court could no longer coerce compliance with it. Defendants failed to raise this argument at any time prior to the present appeal. The First Circuit denied the appeal, holding that Defendants’ belated challenge was implicitly foreclosed by the Court’s prior decisions. View "AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG" on Justia Law

In 2013, CNE Direct, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation that buys and resells bulk technological components, reached an agreement with the now-defunct Asset Recovery Associates Worldwide, Ltd. to purchase phone parts manufactured by BlackBerry Corporation. When Asset failed to make the parts available at the agreed-upon price, CNE sued Asset and also sought to hold BlackBerry itself liable, asserting that Asset was cloaked with both actual and apparent authority to bind BlackBerry in contract. The district court entered default judgment against Asset and summary judgment in favor of BlackBerry. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that no fact finder could rationally conclude that BlackBerry gave CNE reason to think that Asset was acting as BlackBerry’s agent in negotiating the price of the 2013 deal. View "CNE Direct, Inc. v. Blackberry Corp." on Justia Law

Trafon Group, Inc., a Puerto Rico-based wholesale food distributor, filed suit in the District of Puerto Rico alleging that Butterball LLC breached an exclusive distribution agreement in violation of Puerto Rico’s Law 75 of June 24, 1964. Trafon moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining Butterball from further impairing the alleged exclusive distribution agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Trafon’s claim was barred under Law 75’s three-year statute of limitations. The district court then dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Trafon’s action was time-barred under Law 75. View "Trafon Group, Inc. v. Butterball LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants were business entities that organize physically challenging obstacle course events in locations throughout the United States. The four named Plaintiffs registered to participate in one of those events. Plaintiffs filed suit in Massachusetts superior court alleging that they were unable to participate in the event because of a second change of location and that Defendants refused to refund Plaintiffs’ registration fees. Plaintiffs sought relief on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that removal was permitted under the Class Action Fairness Act because the matter in controversy exceeded $5 million. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court arguing that Defendant failed to show that over $5 million was in controversy. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court. The district court then dismissed the case and compelled mediation and arbitration of the dispute. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in concluding that Defendants met their burden of showing that over $5 million was in controversy in this matter. Remanded with instructions to remand the case to state court for lack of jurisdiction. View "Pazol v. Tough Mudder Inc." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a merger agreement, Sellers agreed to indemnity Buyer for the tax liabilities of the company being sold. The tax bills for indemnification purposes, however, were to be calculated as if certain deductions were not going be taken when both parties knew they would be. These deductions reduced the company’s tax liability to zero. After the merger, the company’s tax prepayments and credits were refunded in their entirety, thus benefitting Buyer. Because the calculation of the indemnity obligation was based on a counterfactual measure of tax liability, that calculation resulted in Sellers’ owing Buyer a substantial amount of liability. Buyer filed this complaint asserting claims for declaratory relief and breach of contract. At issue in this case was whether the prepayments and credits affected the tax indemnification obligation of Sellers. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of Sellers, concluding that the indemnification provision unambiguously required that the indemnity obligation be offset by the amount of the refunded prepayments and credits. The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the indemnification provision was ambiguous as to how the tax refunds affect the indemnification obligation of Sellers. Remanded. View "Mercury Sys., Inc. v. S’holder Representative Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Lopez & Medina Corp. (L&M) filed a lawsuit against several insurers for Patriot Air, LLC, alleging that the insurers were liable for L&M’s breach of contract claims against Patriot Air. The district court dismissed L&M’s complaint, concluding that the relevant insurance policy did not provide coverage for contract claims. The First Circuit affirmed. L&M and its owner subsequently filed the complaint in this action seeking recovery in tort for Patriot Air’s negligence arising out of the same set of facts that underlay the previous suit’s breach of contract claims. The district court dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly invoked res judicata in dismissing the action. View "Medina-Padilla v. US Aviation Underwriters, Inc." on Justia Law

Steven Fustolo’s affiliate companies issued four promissory notes to Patton Drive, LLC. Fustolo personally guaranteed two of the notes. When the principal debtors defaulted on all four notes, Patton drive sued Fustolo. The Massachusetts state court found Fustolo liable for breach of contract and entered judgment against Fustolo. Fustolo appealed, challenging the interest due. Meanwhile, Patton Drive joined with two of Fustolo’s other creditors to file a petition seeking to place Fustolo into involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Fustolo, in turn, asserted that Patton Drive was not qualified it to serve as a petitioning creditor because his pending state court appeal subjected Patton Drive’s judgment to “bona fide dispute as to liability or amount.” The bankruptcy court allowed Patton Drive to join in initiating involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against Fustolo. The district court affirmed, finding that Fustolo’s state court appeal could not raise a bona fide dispute as to Patton Drive’s claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that because the amount of Fustolo’s liability on the guaranteed notes was not subject to bona fide dispute, and because Patton Drive’s claim on the guaranteed notes could be considered separately from Patton Drive’s claim on the judgment within which its underlying contract claims were submerged, Patton Drive qualified as a petitioning creditor. View "Fustolo v. 50 Thomas Patton Dr., LLC" on Justia Law