Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a resident of California, and Defendant, a resident of Michigan, worked together with a third man to develop and market an electrolyte for use in hydrogen fuel cells. When Plaintiff and the third man sold the electrolyte technology without telling Defendant, Defendant threatened to sue if he was not paid what he claimed was his one-third share of the proceeds under an oral agreement. Thereafter, Plaintiff sued Defendant in California seeking a declaration that no oral agreement existed between the parties and for damages for intentional interference with a sales contract. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over Defendant on either of the two claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant neither purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in California nor expressly aimed his conduct at California, the district court did not err in dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Picot v. Weston" on Justia Law

At issue in this shareholder class action was the Schwab Total Bond Market, a mutual fund (the Fund). The Fund was created by Schwab Investments (“Schwab Trust”), and its investment adviser was Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (“Schwab Advisor”). The named plaintiff, a registered investment advisery and financial planning firm that had over 200,000 shares of the Fund under its management, filed the class action on behalf of investors who alleged that the managers of the Fund failed to adhere to the Fund’s fundamental investment objectives. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding (1) Northstar had standing to prosecute this case; (2) the district judge erred in dismissing Northstar’s breach of contract claims, as Northstar adequately alleged the formation of a contract between the investors and the trustees; (3) the district judge erred in concluding that Northstar failed to successfully allege a breach of any duty owed directly to Fund investors and that those claims would have to be asserted derivatively; and (4) the district judge erred in dismissing Northstar’s third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim, as Northstar adequately alleged that the investors were third-party beneficiaries of the Investment Advisory and Administration Agreement between Schwab Trust and Schwab Advisor. View "Northstar Fin. Advisors v. Schwab Investments" on Justia Law

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) was appointed to act as receiver for the assets of First Heritage Bank, N.A. (“Heritage”). Heritage had previously purchased, pursuant to an agreement (“Agreement”), interest in a commercial loan that Professional Business Bank (“PBB”) had made to Al’s Garden Art, Inc. The FDIC subsequently sold Heritage’s interest under the Agreement to Commerce First Financial, Inc. (“CFF”). When Al’s Garden Art defaulted on its loan obligations, PBB sued to collect on the loan. CFF then brought a breach of contract action against PBB. PBB filed a third party complaint against the FDIC, alleging that the FDIC’s failure to satisfy the Agreement’s pre-receivership contractual provisions constituted breach of contract. The FDIC moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) preempted PBB’s claims. The district court denied the motion and granted summary judgment for PBB. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the FDIC, in its role of receiver of a closed bank, may not breach underlying asset contractual obligations without consequence. View "Bank of Manhattan, N.A. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiffs signed an Asset Purchase Agreement to purchase a Mercedes-Benz dealership from Asbury. Plaintiffs filed suit against MB after MB exercised a right of first refusal (ROFR) contained in its dealership agreement with Asbury. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court concluded that, because MB exercised its ROFR, plaintiffs have no claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, which requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that MB committed a legal wrong independent from the interference; nor can MB's conduct be considered wrongful and plaintiffs have no claim for intentional interference with contract; plaintiffs have no claim for fraudulent concealment where plaintiffs misinterpreted the Acknowledgement Agreement as a guaranty and because the purportedly concealed facts of that agreement were not material and had been disclosed already to plaintiffs or were readily discoverable; even if plaintiffs were entitled to notice from MB of its exercise of the ROFR, the notic eplaintiffs received was both timely and in proper form; because plaintiffs have an implied right of action under California Vehicle Code 11713.3(t)(6), the court reversed summary judgment as to this claim; and the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to MB on plaintiffs' claim under California's Unfair Competition Statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Fresno Motors v. Mercedes-Benz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and a certified class of EverBank customers filed suit against EverBank for breach of contract. Plaintiff and the class purchased EverBank WorldCurrency certificates of deposit (CDs) denominated in Icelandic krona (ISK), which matured between October 8, 2008, and December 31, 2008. Applying Florida law, the court agreed with the district court that plaintiff failed to introduce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that EverBank breached the Terms and Conditions of the contract by exercising its discretion to close the CDs at maturity under paragraph 1.17 in bad faith; plaintiff's Truth in Savings Act section 266 (TISA), 12 U.S.C. 4305(c), argument is unpersuasive where the TISA does not provide a private right of action to enforce its provisions; the court agreed with the district court that the Lock-In Alternative suggests that many customers might desire to have their balances converted into U.S. dollars upon maturity, and that it would therefore be reasonable for the Terms and Conditions to provide for a generally understood currency conversion rate; but the court disagreed that the Lock-In Alternative establishes as a matter of law that paragraph 2.7.1 of the Terms and Conditions provides that rate; because the Terms and Conditions do not unambiguously supply a currency conversion rate applicable when the CDs are closed, EverBank may have breached its agreement with the class members by returning the value of their CDs using a currency conversion rate within 1% of the wholesale spot price. Accordingly, summary judgment was not appropriate on this issue. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Vathana v. EverBank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wynn Las Vegas, alleging claims of breach of contract and recoupment regarding gambling debts that plaintiff owed to Wynn. The district court dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust the claims before the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The court held, however, that plaintiff was not required to exhaust his claims before the Gaming Control Board because the markers that underlie his case are credit instruments under Nevada law. Because the markers are credit instruments, plaintiff's claims did not trigger the Gaming Control Board's exclusive jurisdiction under Nev. Rev. Stat. 463.361(2). Plaintiff's claims must be resolved in the same manner as any other dispute involving the enforceability of a negotiable instrument. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.View "Zoggolis v. Wynn Las Vegas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit to recover unpaid overtime wages from her former employer, Bloomingdale's. The district court granted Bloomingdale's motion to compel arbitration, determining that shortly after being hired by Bloomingdale's, plaintiff entered into a valid, written arbitration agreement and that all of her claims fell within the scope of that agreement. The court concluded that plaintiff had the right to opt out of the arbitration agreement, and had she done so she would be free to pursue this class action in court. Having freely elected to arbitrate employment-related disputes on an individual basis, without interference from Bloomingdale's, she could not claim that enforcement of the agreement violated either the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. 101 et seq., or the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that the arbitration agreement was valid and, under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., it must be enforced according to its terms. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit alleging that Nordstrom violated various state and federal employment laws by precluding employees from bringing most class action lawsuits in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. Nordstrom, relying on the revised arbitration policy in its employee handbook, sought to compel plaintiff to submit to individual arbitration of her claims. The district court denied Nordstrom's motion to compel. The court concluded that Nordstrom satisfied the minimal requirements under California law for providing employees with reasonable notice of a change to its employee handbook, and Nordstrom was not bound to inform plaintiff that her continued employment after receiving the letter constituted acceptance of new terms of employment. Accordingly, the court concluded that Nordstrom and plaintiff entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to address the issue of unconscionably. View "Davis v. Nordstorm, Inc." on Justia Law

Pyramid Tech filed suit against its insurer, alleging express breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith. Without holding a Daubert hearing, the district court excluded Pyramid Tech's expert witnesses and granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding insufficient evidence that a flood caused damage to Pyramid Tech's property. The court held that, after an expert establishes admissibility to the judge's satisfaction, challenges that go to the weight of the evidence are within the province of a fact finder, not a trial court judge. A district court should not make credibility determinations that are reserved for the jury. In this instance, the district court abused its discretion in excluding the expert evidence of David Spiegel and Ken Pytlewski, but did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert evidence of Del Mortenson. The district court erred in granting summary judgment against Pyramid Tech's claims where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the insurer breached its contract with Pyramid Tech and breached the implied covenant of good faith. However, to the extent such claims were premised on Pyramid Tech's business interruption theory, no material issues of fact existed and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment against that theory of liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for retrial. View "Pyramid Tech. v. Allied Public Adjusters" on Justia Law

UNM, a trade show cleaning company, filed suit against SDC, alleging claims for interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, and antitrust violations. The court reversed the district court's holding that under California law, SDC could not be held liable for the tort of intentional interference with contractual relationship; reversed the grant of judgment as a matter of law on that ground; affirmed the district court's holding that it committed instructional error by not interpreting the terms of the contract and that this error constituted prejudicial error that warranted a new trial; affirmed the district court's holding that SDC possessed state action immunity from UNM's antitrust claim; held that the a new trial is warranted on UNM's claim for intentional interference with contractual relationship; and concluded that, under California law, SDC could not be liable for punitive damages because it is a public entity. View "United Nat'l Maint. v. San Diego Convention Ctr." on Justia Law