Seventh Circuit: Pronschinske Trust Dated March v. Kaw Valley Companies, Inc

A guarantee of a minimum production royalty nested within a provision describing the discretionary commencement of mining operations does not guarantee such a royalty if the party elects not to operate the mine.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-10/C:17-2889:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2200780:S:0

First Circuit: Medical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Burka

Given the terms of the policy, the insurer has no duty to defend a physician who allegedly improperly accessed medical records, since the records were not acquired in the course of professional treatment.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1872P-01A.pdf

Second Circuit: Doe v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Where the federal victim recovery statute looks to state law to determine whether funds are within reach of the statute, a state law determination that electronically transferred funds are reachable only by the entity that transferred the funds to the electronic transfer holding means that the funds cannot be reached by the entity that transferred the funds to the transferring entity, as that would be a transfer in violation of regulations, which is prohibited by another law entirely.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ef543637-0188-4de4-a0a9-d7b548d25e63/3/doc/17-759_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ef543637-0188-4de4-a0a9-d7b548d25e63/3/hilite/

Eighth Circuit: Randy Kinder Excavating v. JA Manning Construction Co.

No clear error in holding that general contractor's threatened withholding of payment and interference was the first material breach of agreement with contractor; contractor's continued performance made the termination of the agreement breach, since the fact that the contractor didn't formally challenge a corps of engineers decisions didn't present a per se claim of nonperformance. Damages reasonable.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/172886P.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Dennis Kirchner, et al v. Deutsche Bank Natl Trust

Where one spouse does not sign the loan note, but does sign the deed of trust which contains similar terms of consent, the loan is held to be sufficiently voluntary against both spouses.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50736-CV0.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Nicholas Knopick v. Jayco, Inc.

If courts do have a prudential power to discern real parties in interest, such a power would be inapposite here, as the plaintiff who used an LLC to purchase a vehicle, and the LLC assigned the right of action to the plaintiff after the commencement of suit.

Absent an equitable "lemon law" showing to the contrary, repairs on a vehicle owned by an LLC and therefore excluded from warrantied repairs did not effect an intentional relinquishment of a known right by the manufacturer that would allow a subsequent claim against the warranty by the LLC.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-11/C:17-2285:J:Hamilton:autcon:T:fnOp:N:2184815:S:0

Second Circuit: Conte v. Emmons

Deft's conduct insufficient as a matter of law to establish tortious interference with contracts, as comments to third parties were not specifically targeted, and any conduct incidental to a lawful purpose cannot be the basis of the claim.

As a matter of law, establishing subsequent breach without a showing of specific causation can't state a claim for tortious interference.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/05194beb-c7ca-4533-89f8-3cdc4043f522/5/doc/17-869_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/05194beb-c7ca-4533-89f8-3cdc4043f522/5/hilite/

Sixth Circuit: James Lossia, Jr. v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc.

Checking account agreement's incorporation of the rules of the financial transfer system meant that it did not breach the agreement by processing the transactions in the order in which they were presented for payment, as opposed to the order in which the customer initiated them.

Automated imposition of a number of overdraft fees exceeding the agreement's limit did not breach the agreement, as there was a policy of manually correcting the overage on the next business day.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0133p-06.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Scott H. Lansing v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

As the claim based in a loan modification application arose within the pendency of the initial foreclosure action, it was available then as an affirmative defense, and is therefore now barred by res judicata.  The present claim based on the loan application violated petitioner's contractual agreement not to judicially challenge the foreclosure action.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/171067P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Wisconsin Central Limited v. Tienergy, LLC

Unresolved third-party claims do not preclude an appeal of the final decision where the trial court has clearly signalled an intent to resolve any outstanding claims.

Federal law defining rail transport rates created an independent cause of action under the act.

Transporting company's lack of actual knowledge of manifest terms defining it as a consignee does not preclude statutory liability as a consignee where it is not in the business of transporting cargo and it retains all funds from the subsequent sale of the product.

No implicit scheme of contribution or agency existed that would shift the costs.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-03/C:17-2343:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2181198:S:0

Fifth Circuit: Fisk Electric Company v. DQSI, L.L.C.

As the rights and liabilities arising from claims on a contract to construct a federal building are derivative of federal statutes, federal law governs a claim of fraudulent inducement.

As the federal common law of contracts mirrors the common law, the Restatement standard of de minimis burden to investigate fraudulent inducement, the claim presented a genuine issue of material fact where a party made reasonable attempts to gain the relevant documents through FOIA requests.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30091-CV0.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Fallon Family, L.P. v. Goodrich Petroleum Corp.

Under state law, where a continuing contractual scheme of payments for a mineral lease is not reflected in the property's recordation, a party to the contract cannot exercise the power of dissolution against the debtor-in-possession counterparty otherwise liable for the pre-petition payments, as the latter has acquired the status of bona fide puchaser for value.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20278-CV0.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Nu Image v. IATSE Local 720

The relevant statute only grants federal jurisdiction over claims of CBA violations; a suit alleging that the provision is void for lack of formation under state law therefore does not state a claim under the statute.

Dissent: It can be construed as a request for declaratory judgment as to the plaintiffs own alleged violation of that provision of the CBA.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/20/16-55451.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Henry Fiorentini v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

As a claimant has the burden to establish a covered condition, a CEO who has returned to work and exercises control over the corporation cannot establish a claim for disability based on the inability to perform another management task (sales) that he deems essential for the corporation to succeed.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-21/C:17-3137:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2174099:S:0

Sixth Circuit: Randy Pearce v. Chrysler Grp. LLC Pension Plan

Error for District Court to simultaneously bar challenges raised before the magistrate and hold all challenges not raised before the magistrate to be waived.

Employer had a duty to list the firing exception in the summary of plan benefits; this exclusion justifies reformation of the plan, which should be considered by the court sitting in equity as being similar to the fraud element of equitable estoppel.

As Plan provisions enabled the individual to accurately calculate benefits, standalone claim of equitable estoppel is not available.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0114p-06.pdf

Tenth Circuit: Rodriguez v. FDIC

As now-bankrupt bank's contractual agreement with its now-bankrupt affiliated group is incredibly complex and ambiguous, the provision of the agreement mandating that any ambiguities be construed in favor of the bank means that there was only an agency relationship between the bank and the organization and the latter has no equitable title to the tax refund due the affiliated organization; the refund now belongs to the bank's FDIC receiver.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1281.pdf

Ninth Circuit: ASARCO, LLC. v. Allied Industrial and Service Workers

If an employer concedes arbitrability of a question, an arbitrator reviewing a collective agreement that prohibits changes in arbitration may reform the terms of the agreement for mutual mistake, subject to rational basis review; such reformation does not offend public policy.

Dissent:  As the arbitrator's authority arises from the collective agreement, the no-add clause stripped the arbitrator of jurisdiction sufficient to amend.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/19/16-16363.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Valero Marketing & Supply Co. v. M/V Almi Sun, IMO

Subcontractor cannot assert lien against vessel, as the vessel did not control the selection or the performance of the subcontractor, and under the statute, a lien only arises against a counterparty to a contract for necessities, or a subcontractor whose selection or performance was controlled by the vessel.

Dissent: There was implicit approval of the selection of the subcontractor.  Disputed question of whether this creates a circuit split.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-30194-CV0.pdf

DC Circuit: Duke Energy v. FERC

Utility's insistence on full performance of the facility and characterization of the obligation as "not economic" was not a directive to purchase the costly fuel that would have ensured continued operation, and there was consequently no indemnification.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/7B92A385E50E4C04852582AD0054B231/$file/16-1133-1736096.pdf

Federal Circuit: Land of Lincoln Mutual Health v. US

No contract-based Takings claim, as there was no contract.

Legislative enactment does not create a property interest cognizable under the Takings Clause.

Dissent: Contract.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1224.Opinion.6-14-2018.pdf