Thursday, July 18, 2019
What you should do if you want your Super Bowl party to be able to last until 4 a.m. (hint: not this)
A recent case out of New York, PJAM Prods., LLC v. M Light, LLC, 652409/2018, stems from a Super Bowl party. PJAM licensed M Light's venue to hold a party coinciding with Super Bowl weekend. There were discussions about the party being allowed to go on until 4 a.m., even though local law required the party to shut down by 2 a.m. PJAM claimed that M Light talked about being able to get permission from the city to keep the venue open until 4 a.m.
No such permission was ever received, however, and PJAM sued for breach of contract. The problem was there was nothing in the contract requiring M Light to get such permission. The contract required M Light to have the proper government permits for the party, but did not specify that those permits should allow the party to extend until 4 a.m., and PJAM acknowledged that the law in the city was to close by 2 a.m., so that's what the proper government permits would have said, too. There was nothing in the Agreement about M Light lobbying the city to keep the venue open until 4 a.m.
PJAM's fraudulent inducement claim also failed, because there was no allegation that M Light was lying about its intention to lobby the city when it said that it was going to. As for allegations the M Light led PJAM to believe its connections with the city were such that the lobbying would be successful, the court called those "mere puffery." The court said it was not justifiable for PJAM to rely on M Light's statements to believe that the 4 a.m. permission would definitely be obtained; rather, PJAM was taking a risk, and there was no indication that things would have turned out differently if M Light had lobbied harder or had better city connections.
Basically, if PJAM wanted M Light to bear the risk of the 4 a.m. permission not coming through, it should have been put in the contract, and it wasn't. The contract was integrated, with a merger clause, so the court did not allow parol evidence of this as an additional term.
The moral of the story is: If you're signing a written contract, don't rely on oral representations different from the contract.
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
A recent case out of California, Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, S251392, concerns a settlement agreement imposing confidentiality obligations. The parties signed the settlement agreement. Their lawyers also signed the settlement agreement, under the preprinted notation "APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT." One of the lawyers then made public statements about the settlement and was sued for breach of contract. The lawyer argued that they were not personally bound by the confidentiality obligations and their signature meant only that they had approved that their client be bound.
The trial court disagreed with the lawyer's argument. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the attorneys were not personally bound based on the presence of the notation. This California Supreme Court ruling reversed again, concluding that the notation did not preclude a finding that the attorneys were personally bound. The agreement itself included counsel in its confidentiality provisions, and a signature on a contract usually indicates consent to be bound by that contract.
While it is true that the included notation is generally understood to mean that the attorney has read the document and recommends that their client should sign it, that does not mean that it also inevitably means that the attorney is not bound by the agreement. In this case, where the agreement expressly referenced the confidentiality obligations of counsel, a conclusion that counsel intended to be bound by their signature, even with the notation, was plausible.
(h/t to Eric Chiappinelli of Texas Tech for passing this case along!)
Thursday, July 11, 2019
Ja Rule mostly dismissed from Fyre Festival case, with the possibility of one pesky tweet coming back to haunt him
If you're not familiar with the debacle of Fyre Festival, you can watch two documentaries about it, or catch up on the Wikipedia page. The tl;dr version is: It was billed as a luxury music festival that would blow Coachella out of the water, and was canceled on the day it was to start, leaving attendees, who had paid thousands of dollars to attend, stranded with FEMA tents for accommodation. The festival had some big names associated with it, co-founded by Ja Rule and promoted on social media by people like Kendall Jenner and Bella Hadid. Ja Rule was sued, along with Billy McFarland, CEO of Fyre Media, who has already pleaded guilty to fraud in connection with the festival and has been sentenced to prison.
Now, there's a recent ruling out of the Southern District of New York in In re Fyre Festival Litigation, 17-cv-3296 (PKC) (see links at end of blog post), that might succeed in dismissing Ja Rule from the case. The plaintiffs have been granted a very limited leave to amend with respect to one specific tweet, so Ja Rule might stay in the case on the basis of that tweet.
The case has contract claims against Fyre Media, but this opinion focuses on individuals, Ja Rule and Grant Margolin, former Chief Marketing Officer for Fyre Festival. Neither Margolin nor Ja Rule was a party to the contract at issue in the case, so this decision doesn't take up the contract issues, but it is interesting on the fraud issue, so I'm blogging it anyway (also, how can you not blog a court opinion that has a footnote explaining what "FOMO" means?). Fraud requires pleading with particularity, and the plaintiffs fail to meet this burden. Although they allege many allegedly fraudulent statements, they fail to allege when many of those statements were made or whether the defendants knew at the time that the statements were untrue. After all, the defendants could have made the statements about Fyre Festival with every intention of delivering on their promises of an incredible festival.
The one exception to this is a particular tweet at issue by Ja Rule. The plaintiffs properly allege the date of that tweet, which was the day before the festival was scheduled to start (and instead was canceled). The tweet reads, "The stage is set!!! In less than 24 hours, the first annual Fyre Festival begins. #festivallife" The plaintiffs also allege that Ja Rule must at least have been reckless in continuing to encourage people to attend a festival whose stage was not at all set. The plaintiffs trip up when it comes to alleging reliance on their part on the tweet, but the court gives them leave to amend to try to fix this failure. The court does not give the plaintiffs leave to amend any of the other failings of the complaint because of delay on the part of the plaintiffs.
The court also discusses some negligence issues as well as tortious interference and unjust enrichment claims. When it comes to tortious interference, there were no allegations that Ja Rule or Margolin interfered with or caused Fyre Festival's inability to perform the contract, merely that they knew Fyre Festival would not be able to perform. As for the unjust enrichment claim, the court warns that this is not a catch-all cause of action and cannot be used to cure the defects in the other causes of action.
Monday, July 8, 2019
My students are always asking me about misdelivered packages, so I read this recent case out of the District of Oregon, Mansfield v. Leigh, Case No. 6:19-cv-00254-MK (behind paywall), with interest. It's a fairly straightforward case about a lost package, and a fairly straightforward analysis of your options for recovery if a package goes missing. The plaintiff was seeking over a thousand dollars in damages for the lost package, but the court finds that her recovery was limited to the fifty dollars of insurance she purchased (she actually received slightly more because the post office also refunded her service charge).
This case is a reminder to take the postal insurance seriously. I once had a package go missing and I had insured it but not nearly for the value of what went missing. That was all on me, and I've taken that insurance situation seriously ever since.
Saturday, July 6, 2019
A recent case out of the Southern District of Ohio, The Devine Group, Inc. v. Omni Hotels Corp., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-186 (WOB) (behind paywall), is a fairly straightforward contract interpretation case with a good parol evidence discussion. The court finds that the contract is unambiguously worded and so refuses to look to any extrinsic evidence. If you're looking for a contract clause example to use in class, this might be a good one.
Monday, July 1, 2019
A recent case out of Texas, Bitter Creek Water Supply Corp. v. Sims, No. 11-17-00080-CV (behind paywall), talks about a lot of contract issues, but I found the ambiguity discussion most interesting. The contract at issue, signed in 1986, tied the purchase price to whatever price Bitter Creek was paying the City of Sweetwater for water. At the time, Bitter Creek had been buying water from the City for many years. However, Bitter Creek no longer buys water from the City. Therefore, there's a dispute over how to interpret the contractual purchase price now that there is no City purchase price to tie it to.
Sims contended that under the UCC he could opt to read a reasonable price into the contract, now that the City purchase price had failed. Bitter Creek, though, argued that the parties had agreed to an express fixed price that they no longer had agreement on. The court discusses the UCC's application and ambiguity and finds that the provision is ambiguous and the parties' intent needs to be examined, leading to a factual dispute that can't be resolved on summary judgment.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
I had been paying attention to this case out of the Western District of Washington, Moi v. Chihuly Studio, Inc., Cause No. C17-0853RSL (behind paywall), because it raises interesting copyright authorship issues. The case is a lawsuit brought by a person who was one of Chihuly's assistants, who create artwork in Chihuly's name under Chihuly's supervision. The plaintiff worked for Chihuly in this way for fifteen years, until a falling-out between Chihuly and another of the assistants resulted in the deterioration of the plaintiff's relationship with Chihuly as well. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging co-authorship of 285 artworks and requesting compensation for his work on them. You can read more about the lawsuit here.
As I said, I was paying attention to this case for the copyright authorship analysis, which follows the Aalmuhammed test and finds that, because the plaintiff did not exercise control, he is not an author of the artworks, despite his copyrightable contributions to the artworks. The authorship test analysis also considers the lack of contract between the plaintiff and Chihuly as indicating that Chihuly did not intend to share authorship with the plaintiff.
That same lack of contract dooms the plaintiff's attempt to seek compensation for his work. Because there's no contract, the plaintiff's cause of action is promissory estoppel, but Chihuly's promises over the years to compensate plaintiff by keeping track of which artworks plaintiff had contributed to were, in the court's view, too vague to constitute promises that the plaintiff could have relied on. The plaintiff confessed that he had no idea what his eventual compensation might be or when he would receive it, just that he trusted Chihuly to treat him "fairly." Promises forming the basis of promissory estoppel need to be clear and definite, and Chihuly's statements were simply too vague. Considering that plaintiff couldn't even say what they meant, the court refused to enforce them.
This is, once again, a lesson in making sure you have a clear and complete understanding with someone, and not just vague platitudes.
Monday, June 24, 2019
I just blogged about a consideration case last week, and now here's another one out of Illinois, Johnson v. Illinois Alcohol & Other Drug Abuse Professional Certification Association, Nos. 4-18-0562 4-18-0575 cons (behind paywall). This case concerns an at-will employment contract that was later modified to include a definite retirement date. The defendant argues that there was no consideration for this modification of the contract, and thus it's not binding. However, the court notes that Johnson gave up his ability to work for the defendant beyond the retirement date and that that served as consideration for the modification of the employment contract. There were also some changes in job duties and title as well as an additional agreement reached on how sick and vacation days would be used over the remainder of the employment term. All of this was sufficient to show that both parties bargained for things from the other in this new binding contract.
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
Continuing the theme of thinking about fall courses, a recent case out of the Western District of Washington, Phytelligence, Inc. v. Washington State University, Case No. C18-405 RSM (behind paywall), has a discussion about both extrinsic evidence and agreements to agree -- both topics my students often struggle with. Might be worthwhile to take a look at this recent analysis, especially if you teach in Washington.
Monday, June 17, 2019
If you've already started thinking about gathering examples for your courses this fall, here's a consideration case for you out of Ohio, Forbes v. Showmann, Inc., Appeal No. C-180325. Forbes was an employee of Showmann, and at a holiday party Showmann gave its employees, including Forbes, raffle tickets. One of the prizes was what sounds like a pretty sweet cruise package, and Forbes won the cruise. Showmann terminated Forbes's employment a few weeks later and informed Forbes that the cruise package was conditioned on Forbes still being a Showmann employee when she took the cruise.
Forbes sued for breach of contract but the problem was that it was undisputed that Forbes did not pay for the raffle ticket. Showmann simply distributed the raffle tickets for free to its employees. Therefore, there was no consideration with which to form a contract. Forbes tried to argue her employment by Showmann was the consideration for the ticket but Forbes's employment was not used to bargain for the raffle ticket in exchange, so therefore there was no contract.
If you feel bad for Forbes, which I admit I kind of did based on these given facts, her conversion claim does survive, so there is some hope for her.
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Was Leaving Neverland a breach of contract by HBO based on its airing of a 1992 Michael Jackson concert?
HBO's Leaving Neverland documentary, detailing the allegations of sexual abuse leveled at Michael Jackson, has resulted in an interesting lawsuit in the Central District of California, Optimum Prods. v. Home Box Office, CV 19-1862-GW(PJWx) (behind paywall).
Because Jackson is dead, there is no defamation claim to be brought; therefore, this lawsuit is grounded in a contract between Jackson and Optimum's predecessor entity and HBO regarding televising one of Jackson's concerts from his Dangerous world tour, which HBO aired in October 1992. The contract contained a provision prohibiting HBO from making "any disparaging remarks concerning" Jackson. Optimum alleges that HBO has breached this provision by airing the Leaving Neverland documentary.
Naturally the contract also contained an arbitration provision, which provided that the parties would choose an arbitrator and, if they couldn't agree, eventually the Superior Court of the State of the California for the County of Los Angeles would select the arbitrator. Optimum initially filed its complaint in state court, but HBO removed it to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Optimum does not dispute the existence of diversity jurisdiction but argues that the arbitration provision also acts as a forum selection provision requiring the litigation be heard by California Superior Court in Los Angeles County.
The court declines to construe the arbitration provision as conferring exclusive jurisdiction to California state court. The arbitration provision does not discuss exclusive jurisdiction at all. The plain language of the provision only provides the state court with one responsibility: choosing an arbitrator if the parties can't agree on one. That is not a conferral of exclusive jurisdiction.
There is also a dispute between the parties over whether the suit needs to be arbitrated. The court is torn on that issue. The American Arbitration Association's rule that arbitrability of a contract be decided by the arbitrator came into effect after the parties had signed the 1992 contract, and the court is hesitant to apply it retroactively. There is precedent to support retroactive application but the court thinks it doesn't make sense to pretend that the parties "clearly and unmistakably" agreed to be bound by rules that did not even exist. None of the precedent provided to the court was binding, so the court requests that the parties discuss the issue further at an upcoming hearing.
Saturday, May 25, 2019
A recent case out of New York, Leakey v. The Setai Group LLC, 151298/2014, concerns a tragic event. The plaintiff, Leakey, was allegedly sexually assaulted during a massage.
Leakey sued several entities, including the owners and operators of the spa, on theories of negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. The negligence claims failed because the massage therapist acted outside of the scope of his employment in sexually assaulting Leakey and there was no evidence the spa operators knew of any propensity by the therapist for inappropriate sexual conduct (this also doomed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim). As for the breach of contract claim, there was no promise that the spa or its employees would be safe, so there was nothing to breach.
(You can read the complaint in the case here.)
Friday, May 17, 2019
This recent case out of Delaware, Leaf Invenergy Co. v. Invenergy Renewables LLC, C.A. No. 11830-VCL, is a corporate disagreement that requires the court to interpret the contract and then establish the proper measure of damages. Which is very complicated, with the courts disagreeing on what the benefit of the bargain was, what needs to be considered to put the party in the position they would have been in but for the breach, and how the theory of efficient breach affects all of this. Damages is always a unit that makes my students' heads hurt, and this is a case that reminds me why!
h/t to Eric Chiappinelli from Texas Tech!
Monday, May 6, 2019
A recent case out of New York, Umeh v. Checole, 159884/2018, reminded me of the first time I negotiated a publishing contract (sidenote: I happen to also be a published novelist). The dispute is a straightforward one: the publishing contract contained an arbitration clause, the plaintiff alleges she didn't realize the arbitration clause meant she was giving up her ability to go to court, the court decides that arbitration is favored and the plaintiff wasn't "naive" so her agreement to the contract represented "a clear and unmistakable intent by two willing parties to resolve disputes by arbitration."
My publishing contract didn't have an arbitration clause, but this case reminded me of it nonetheless because, after the contract was sent to me by my editor, I asked for a couple of changes and sent it back, and my editor replied something along the lines of, "Hey, I was wondering actually if you could explain to me what that part of the contract means, I've never understood." And that was my introduction to the fact that so, so, so many people are entering into contracts that they have no idea what they mean. This was a contract the publishing company sent to me, but there wasn't enough of a communication to non-lawyers in the company what the contract meant. I write fiction for fun, but I think one of the biggest fictions is the one in which we pretend that people understand the contracts they're entering into.
Thursday, May 2, 2019
The difficulties in establish an oral agreement, the difficulties in establishing promissory estoppel
A recent case out of the Fifth Circuit, Mr. Mudbug, Inc. v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., No. 18-30626 (behind paywall), reminds us that, in the case of establishing the existence of an oral agreement, it helps to have testimony that comes from a third party.
The plaintiff asserted that it had entered into an oral agreement with the defendant where the defendant promised to buy 28 million pounds of various dressings. However, all of the testimony about the existence of the oral agreement came from the plaintiff's executives. While it was true that the plaintiff and the defendant had a ten-year business relationship, that by itself did not establish the existence of the 28-million-pound contract, especially where the defendant had provided evidence that it consistently refused to commit to a specific volume of purchasing.
Having failed to establish the existence of a contract, the plaintiff turned to promissory estoppel, but you can only have promissory estoppel where a promise exists. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant told it that it would have to "substantially enlarge its . . . facilities" if it wanted "to produce all of the food products" that the defendant would need. But this was a declaration of fact, not a promise that the defendant would enter into contracts with the plaintiff if it expanded.
Monday, April 29, 2019
Would we really say that Weinstein's company's directors didn't approve of his pattern of sexual misconduct?
This, strictly speaking, isn't really a contract case, although there is an employment contract at issue so I guess that's how it got caught in my filter. But I read it and thought that this case is raising important enough issues that we should be discussing them.
The case is David v. The Weinstein Company LLC, 18-cv-5414 (RA), out of the Southern District of New York, and it's a case centering around the alleged sexual assault perpetrated by Harvey Weinstein on the plaintiff. The story the plaintiff tells is a familiar one to those who have read the Weinstein reporting, that "Weinstein asked her to meet him in his hotel room to discuss potential acting roles, and then, on one occasion, forcibly raped her." This decision isn't so much about Weinstein's conduct, though, as it is about the former directors of Weinstein's companies, who the plaintiff contends "enabled Weinstein's sexual misconduct, making them liable for general negligence and negligent retention or supervision."
The court dismisses the claims against the directors, and the reasons why were what caught my eye about this case. Plaintiff's allegations were that the directors were aware of Weinstein's harassing behavior toward women, based on a number of things: a written communication within the company calling his behavior a "serial problem" the company had to deal with; the characterization by a company executive of Weinstein's female assistants as "honeypot[s]" to lure actresses into meetings with Weinstein; a formal complaint by an employee about Weinstein's behavior; an employee memo summarizing two years' worth of allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct by Weinstein and characterizing the company as a "toxic environment for women"; the settlement of many sexual misconduct claims against Weinstein; and at least one police investigation into Weinstein's behavior.
None of the allegations established negligence on the part of the directors, according to the court. First of all, the directors did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care, and there is no case law that directors of a company can be held liable for an employee's tortious act. The plaintiff pointed to the fact that the directors renewed Weinstein's contract in 2015 with a provision that prevented Weinstein from being fired for sexual misconduct as evidence that they were enabling Weinstein's conduct, but the court found that this was "a far cry from them approving of Weinstein's sexual assault." While the court admitted that the directors "were not without moral culpability," their actions were not negligence as a legal matter.
Nor did the plaintiff assert a claim for negligent retention or supervision. The plaintiff did not show that Weinstein's sexual assault took place on the company's premises, since she asserted it happened at a hotel not affiliated with the directors. While the plaintiff argued that Weinstein used company credit cards to pay to the hotel room and lured her to the hotel room under the guise of a business meeting regarding employment by the company, that was regarding the company, not the directors sued here.
As a matter of law, the court's reasoning makes sense.
As a matter of recognition of how oppressive power structures work, this decision is terrible.
When I learned negligence way back in law school, I remember so many discussions about the policy behind it, about not wanting to hold people to a generalized duty to protect everyone on the planet, about how we decide proximate causation, about how it's really at heart about what we want to hold people liable for and what we don't.
So this decision makes sense in terms of worrying about generalized duties, of not dismissing the culpability of those committing the intentional tortious act. But it doesn't make sense in terms of thinking about the type of society we want to live in. The Weinstein reporting tells a story of serial abuse that was systemically protected for years by the power structure around Weinstein. To say that nobody else in the power structure was sexually assaulting women is a true statement of legal fact, but also seems disingenuous at this point. Weinstein's abuse was so widespread and lasted so long not only because of Weinstein but also because of the entire operation around him deflecting culpability for it.
The negligence analysis in this case feels like it's operating in a vacuum, which is kind of how we teach our students to think, presenting them with discrete hypotheticals, but might not be the best or most effective way to set up a fair legal system that protects the most vulnerable and least powerful in society. The societal discussion about the oppressive system that permitted Weinstein (and others) to perpetrate so much abuse has just begun, and maybe we should include how the legal system interacts with those power structures in the discussion. If negligence is all about policy decisions about who you need to protect and how much, then maybe we should have a policy discussion about how to make those decisions, especially if we're making them in the context of an abusive pattern that might be obscured by looking at things in isolation.
The plaintiff's allegations in this case contain many damning examples that many people around Weinstein knew about the disturbing pattern of sexual misconduct, and made affirmative choices to find ways to use the power structure to protect Weinstein. I appreciate the court's statement that the directors might be morally culpable but not legally culpable, and I recognize that law and morals are two different things. But I don't know that I agree that the director's actions are "a far cry from them approving of Weinstein's sexual assault . . . ." Given the allegations about what the directors knew and how they reacted to that knowledge, I think we could read their actions as indicating that they were a far cry from disapproving of Weinstein's sexual assault.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
A recent case out of the Southern District of New York, Optima Media Group Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., 17-cv-1898 (AJN), reminds us that fraud causes of action, including fraudulent inducement to enter into a contract, need to be pled with specificity.
In the case, Bloomberg alleged that it had been fraudulently induced to enter into the contract based on alleged misrepresentations made by "Optima's head, Rotimi Pedro, and his principal advisers" made "in a series of communications" "during [the] negotiations." This was not enough specificity. These allegations do not identify exactly: who provided these alleged misrepresentations, where they were made, how they were made, or when they were made. For instance, there was no indication whether the statements were made "in person, over the phone, or by email." Failure to specify the exact speakers was problematic in and of itself, and especially problematic in view of the failure to specify the location, method, or time frame of the alleged misrepresentations. Therefore, the court dismissed the claim. (Other of Bloomberg's claims survived.)
Monday, April 22, 2019
Don't just stand there, let's get to it: Second Circuit orders payment of "Vogue" royalties (aside, I hadn't listened to "Vogue" in a while, and it totally started my week off right!)
A recent case out of the Second Circuit, Pettibone v. WB Music Corp., 18-1000-cv, caught my eye because I teach the underlying copyright dispute driving this contractual dispute. You can listen to the case's oral argument here.
Pettibone composed the song "Vogue" with Madonna and entered into a contract with Warner where Warner collected the royalties for the song and split them with Pettibone. In 2012, Pettibone and Warner were sued for copyright infringement. They each had their own counsel and each bore their own costs in successfully defending the lawsuit, both in the trial court and on appeal. (You can read the appellate court decision here. We talk about it in my Transformative Works and Copyright Fair Use class when we do a unit on music.)
After the conclusion of the copyright suit, Warner withheld over $500,000 worth of royalties from Pettibone, claiming that under Section 8.1 of the agreement between Warner and Pettibone, it was allowed to withhold the royalties to pay for its defense of the copyright infringement suit. Section 8.1 read in part, "Each party will indemnify the other against any loss or damage (including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees) due to a breach of this agreement by that party which results in a judgment against the other party . . . ."
Pettibone sued, arguing that he had never breached the agreement and therefore Section 8.1 did not permit Warner to withhold any royalties. The district court found that Section 8.1 "unambiguously requires Pettibone to indemnify Warner for the attorneys' fees and costs," and dismissed Pettibone's complaint.
In another example of ambiguous understandings of ambiguity, the appellate court here reversed the district court's holding, instead finding that Section 8.1 is "pock-mocked with ambiguity." In the Second Circuit's opinion, a better reading of the section was that, if there was no breach, each party should carry its own attorneys' fees and costs. In fact, Section 8.1 went on to read that "each party is entitled to be notified of any action against the other brought with respect to [the song 'Vogue'], and to participate in the defense thereof by counsel of its choice, at its sole cost and expense" (emphasis added). A fair reading of the section, the Second Circuit said, was that it required Pettibone to indemnify Warner if Pettibone breached the contract, but not otherwise.
Warner was the party that drafted the contract, and could easily have stated that indemnification happened in the event of any allegations, not just any breach. That was not, though, how the contract was drafted.
The effect of Warner's argument would be to shift a million dollars' worth of attorneys' fees onto Pettibone, just because there was a lawsuit, "regardless of merit or frivolousness." The Second Circuit found that to be "an extraordinary result" not justified by the section's ambiguous language. Therefore, the Second Circuit ordered reversal of the district court's dismissal, judgment for Pettibone, and calculation of the royalties improperly withheld from Pettibone, as well as consideration of Pettibone's request for attorneys' fees in connection with the instant action and appeal.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
A recent case out of the Northern District of California, Sanchez v. Gruma Corporation, Case No. 19-cv-00794-WHO, is a good case to point to to remind students that unconscionability has both procedural and substantive sides, and you need to have both. In the case, the court admits that the plaintiff's account of the signing of the contract raised procedural unconscionability issues: the plaintiff alleged that he was given no choice, was told if he did not sign the contract he could not work at the company, was not told what the contract really meant, and was given no opportunity to review the contract. However, this procedural unconscionability ultimately didn't matter, because the court ruled the contract was not substantively unconscionable. There was one provision the court found unenforceable but the court severed that provision and enforced the rest of the agreement.
Monday, April 15, 2019
A recent case out of the Central District of California, Chromadex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., Case No. SACV 16-02277-CJC(DFMx) (behind paywall), discusses consideration allegations under California law. I never practiced in California and don't teach in California, so I didn't realize that California has a statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 1614, that provides that "[a] written instrument is presumptive evidence of consideration." The defendants argued that the contract in question did not have consideration because the consideration was an offer of employment to Morris but Morris left that employment the same day he signed the agreement. However, the court pointed out that the plaintiff alleged the agreement was a written instrument and attached it to the complaint, which raised the presumption that it had adequate consideration, so the court refused to dismiss the claim.