Third Circuit: Plastic Surgery Center, P.A. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co

ERISA does not preempt state contract law as to claims by an out of network provider where the agreement with the provider only references the Plan for terms of payment, the reference is discernible in a cursory review, and no further construction of the plan is necessary to resolve the claim.

Court's subsequent construction of the plan to set damages in the legal action does not implicate this enmeshment consideration.

Similarly, express requirement for preapproval of procedures merely means that the out-of-network contract happens against the backdrop of the plan.

Where the contract is between the Plan and an out-of-network provider, it implicates a relationship that the Plan was never intended to govern, and therefore is not in connection with the Plan.

As judicial resolution of the claims addresses freestanding claims between the parties and not Plan benefits, it is not in connection with the plan; this accords with statutory purpose.

Unjust enrichment claims, on the other hand, are in connection with the Plan, as they implicate the Administrator's duties to the participants.

Plastic Surgery Center, P.A. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co

First Circuit: Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Intra-state delivery drivers routinely carrying interstate parcels for a company engaged in interstate commerce are sufficiently engaged in interstate commerce to qualify for the exception to the Arbitration Act, given the interpretation of a parallel statute -- the narrow reading of arbitration exceptions and legislative history to the contrary are both answered within the precedent.

Where the express choice of a certain law for the arbitration provisions in a contract is severed in judicial review according to the severability provisions of the contract, the law identified in he general choice of law provision of the contract instead controls the arbitration provisions.

Although class claim waivers in agreements covered by the Arbitration Act cannot be waived due to the state's public policy, where, as here, the agreement is within an exception to the Act, state public policy can make the waiver of class claims unenforceable.

As the conflicts rules of the forum state would oust the foreign law where it contradicted state public policy, the conflicts rules of the forum state that has identified the policy interest control.

Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Fifth Circuit: Vantage Deepwater Company, et al v. Petrobras Amer

Court appropriately deferred to arbitrators' decision, since public policy does not bar arbitration agreements resolving questions about contracts achieved through dubious means -- the question on the public policy exception is whether the ratification would create a danger to the public.

Court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery during arbitration vacatur proceedings seeking testimony of arbitrator, since arbitration association rules prohibiting it are incorporated, and the arbitration record is equivocal.

No abuse of discretion in denying subpoena for arbitration association, given vague boundaries of immunity, and necessity to move things along.

As arbitration agreement discussed the equities of the parties in full, it was not sufficiently contrary to the agreement's choice of law and corporate form and surety provisions. 

Vantage Deepwater Company, et al v. Petrobras Amer

Third Circuit: Christina Williams v. Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP

Reference to delegation clause in challenge to validity of an arbitration agreement is sufficient to merit review of the validity of the clause, even where the agreement elsewhere specifies that the enforceability of the agreement is a matter for arbitration.

Where parties do not provide court with the substance of the Tribal law selected by the agreement's choice of law provision, the law of the forum is used to assess which statutory claims might be raised against the agreement.

Choice of law terms in an arbitration agreement do not necessarily expand the range of claims that can be raised under the arbitrability sections of the agreement.

Where an arbitration agreement clearly waives federal rights, it need not explicitly do so to be an impermissible prospective waiver for reasons of public policy.

Waiver sufficiently central to the arbitration process to strike the entire agreement.

Christina Williams v. Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP

Sixth Circuit: Jesse Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions

Door to door utility canvassers are subject to the travelling salesman exception to the statute, since although the utility has the final power to ratify the sale or not , gaining the consent of the customer is the work of the salesman.

Although the portal-to-portal act puts some security screening time outside the Labor act's compensation mechanism, state law might cover the claim, since state law does not mimic the exception, and work need not involve exertion.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0207p-06.pdf

Second Circuit: Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co.

The term "occurrence" in the policy generally signifies an unexpected event; under state law, except for some strict liability events, the test is actual subjective expectation, not that which a reasonable person would expect.

The challenging of claims by the insurer did not violate state trade practice laws. 

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/1/doc/16-2999_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/85b366f3-f243-43e5-81c8-b4640a784328/1/hilite/

First Circuit: Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Container Store, Inc.

Blind in-store customers cannot be charged with actual or constructive notice of arbitration provision in retail loyalty club agreement shown on computer display at time of enrollment; the agreement, as it happens, was also illusory, as the store retained untramelled powers to modify the agreement.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2112P-01A.pdf

Third Circuit: Trinity Industries Inc v. Greenlease Holding Co

Risk did not pass back to indemnified party at the end of the period of indemnification, but should be allocated according to law and the other provisions of the agreement.

Cleanup costs, although more expensive due to being prompted by consent order, had sufficient nexus to the environmental response and were therefore reasonable.

Cost allocation methodology was improper, as it did not consider costs of individual remediations.

Court did not abuse discretion in attributing lead contamination to historic factors.

Arbitrary award  percentages used in balancing of equities were not supported by specifics in the record.

Corporate entities distinct.  Public policy requires presumption for the corporate form.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/161994p.pdf

Second Circuit: Spinelli v. National Football League

As implied license is an affirmative defense, all elements must be plain in order to dismiss an infringement claim at the pleadings stage.

Error to dismiss for not stating a claim where there is evidence that the grant of license by the creator did not contemplate the sublicence; this sounds in copyright infringement, not in contract.

Secondary infringement allegation states a claim against third party organization given showing of close connection between the two organizations.

Good faith/fair dealing states claim -- strong-arm negotiation unconscionability doesn't.

(Miscellany)

Antitrust argument would sound more clearly if photographers challenged their market -- trademark licensing, etc.  Rather than simply alleging the existence of a behemoth.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a4eaf0b6-79ed-4fa7-b47b-3f412f9925f4/1/doc/17-673_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a4eaf0b6-79ed-4fa7-b47b-3f412f9925f4/1/hilite/

First Circuit: US v. Irizarry-Rosario

References in closing to potentially aggravating factors do not breach  the plea deal, so long  as the tactic is not an end run around the plea agreement, and the government doesn't express regret or a desire to be free of the terms of the deal.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1117P-01A.pdf

Third Circuit: William Lee v. Sixth Mt Zion Baptist Church

Claims of minister whose contract with his church was terminated for cause due to lack of spiritual leadership do not present an issue for trial, as the question would impermissibly entangle the court in religious matters, and the church has a freestanding First Amendment right to select its ministers.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173086p.pdf

Fifth Circuit: SCF Waxler Marine, L.L.C., et al v. Aris T M/V, et al.

Appellate court does not have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's holding that contractually, the excess insurers liability under the state's direct recovery statute is limited to the insured vessel.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30805-CV0.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Swinterton Builders v. Oklahoma Surety

Insurer had duty to defend, since the written agreement establishing the company as an insured party did not need to be countersigned by the company to be a written agreement; the company's consent can be inferred.

Where the claim is for breach of contract, an insurer still has a duty to defend against a claim for property damage where the factual situation alleged might present a claim for property damage.

Whether or not anti-stacking provisions apply to duty to defend, it would be inequitable to apply them here.

Damages in suit where insurer breached duty to defend qualify for state statute requiring prompt payment for the schedule.

Damages can be recovered under statute regardless of independent injury from the lack of payment.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-20195-CV1.pdf

First Circuit: Scholz v. Goudreau

Given uncontroverted evidence of attempted compliance with the terms of the agreement, court did not abuse its discretion in holding that there was no issue for trial.

As the question was relevant to other matters, lack of objection to cross-examination questions on actual versus apparent authority did not constitute implied consent to an amendment of claim to include breach.

As damages are an element of the breach claim, court did not abuse its discretion in refusing entry of judgment on breach claim after jury's finding of breach in order to dispel the counterclaim.

Allegation that litigation was used to obtain contract rescission sounds in malicious prosecution, not in abuse of process.

Where the legitimate purpose of the claim is truthfully stated in the claim itself, the claim is not an abuse of process, however spitefully it might have been raised.

Court was within its discretion in refusing an award of fees.

Court was within discretion in admitting contemporaneous, ostensibly independent YT clip under the theory that it was part of the album's marketing.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1264P-01A.pdf

Third Circuit: Newark Cab Association v. City of Newark

The owner of a taxi licence has a Constitutional property interest in the licence, but not necessarily in its economic value. 

Sufficient rational basis for treating street-hail cabs differently than app-based services. 

City's licensing scheme does not use language that plainly expresses the intention to create a contractual obligation, and is not definite enough to bind by estoppel,.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171358p.pdf

Fifth Circuit: IAS Service Group, L.L.C. v. Jim Buckley & Associates

Fraudulent inducement pleaded with sufficient particularity; Contractual term did not operate as a disclaimer of reliance; no clear error in court's determination that breach of contract regarding assignment was harmless; party asserting breach had the obligation to establish performance of the condition precedent.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50105-CV0.pdf

Seventh Circuit: BRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Continental Carbon Company

Conditional right of first refusal requiring counterparty to allow vendor the chance to match any lower price for the contracted item is sufficiently binding on the first party to operate as consideration for the contract.  As the factual statements of the original claim support a theory of anticipatory repudiation, the court may allow the new theory of claim at summary judgment, absent prejudice.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-16/C:17-2783:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:2203557:S:0

Sixth Circuit: Jena McClellan v. Midwest Machining, Inc.

Where a plaintiff alleging discrimination attempts to return the contractual consideration for an earlier waiver of the claim within a reasonable period of learning of their rights under the discrimination statute, the common-law tender-back rule is satisfied. 

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0171p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit: Jonathan Gaffers v. Kelly Servs., Inc.

Arbitration agreement is not displaced by the FLSA; a challenge to the agreements on the basis that compelling individual arbitration precludes collective action is a challenge to the purpose of arbitration, and therefore not permissible under the savings clause of the Act.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0170p-06.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Straits Financial LLC v. Ten Sleep Cattle Co.

Account guarantee agreement for cattle hedging account void  where plaintiff had no knowledge of the illicit trades being made using it.

Duty to mitigate begins with actual knowledge.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-13/C:17-2100:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2201302:S:0