Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

New Jersey enacted the 2002 Off-Track and Account Wagering Act, N.J. Stat. 5:5-127, providing for establishment of 15 off-track wagering (OTW) facilities. The Act authorized a license for the N.J. Sports and Exposition Authority, conditioned upon NJSEA entering into a participation agreement with other entities that held horse racing permits in 2000 (ACRA and Freehold). NJSEA, ACRA, and Freehold entered into an agreement, allocating permit rights. By 2011, only four facilities had opened. NJSEA had leased control of its tracks to the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association (NJTHA) and another. The 2011 Forfeiture Amendment provided that permit holders would forfeit rights to any OTW not licensed by 2012, unless they demonstrated “making progress” toward establishing an OTW; forfeited rights would be available to other “horsemen’s organizations” without compensation to the permit holder. NJTHA qualified for forfeited rights. The 2012 Deposit Amendment extended the forfeiture date and allowed a permit holder to make a $1 million deposit for each OTW facility not licensed by December 31, 2011, retaining the “making progress” exception. The Pilot Program Act allowed installation of electronic wagering terminals in some bars and restaurants, by lessees or purchasers of NJSEA-owned racetracks, who could exchange unused OTW licenses to install electronic terminals. NJTHA secured such a license. ACRA and Freehold submitted challenged the constitutionality of the amendments under the Contracts, Takings, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses. The Commission determined that both ACRA and Freehold had made progress toward establishing their unlicensed OTW facilities and absolved them of the obligation to submit deposits. The district court dismissed a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 on Younger abstention grounds. Subsequently, the Supreme Court decided Sprint Communications v. Jacobs, (2013), clarifying the Younger abstention doctrine. The Third Circuit reversed, finding that the action does not fit within the framework for abstention. View "Acra Turf Club, LLC v. Zanzuccki" on Justia Law

The sellers own an island off St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, and a launch providing access to the island from St. Thomas. In 2004, the buyers signed land contracts and an escrow agreement to purchase the properties for $21 million and $2.5 million, respectively. Premier Title served as the escrow agent and was party to the escrow agreement. Unbeknownst to the buyers, D’Amour, the sellers’ attorney-in-fact, owned Premier. The contract required an initial deposit of $1 million. The buyers paid an additional $500,000 nonrefundable deposit to extend the closing date. The sellers were to deliver “Clear and Marketable” title and assignments of all permits, submerged land leases and other licenses necessary for occupancy of the dock and other improvements. At the scheduled closing, it was determined that dock permits had expired and that there were several exceptions to title. The sellers refused to refund the deposits. The buyers appealed district court orders, rejecting certain claims; the sellers cross-appealed other orders. D’Amour appealed some holdings. The Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that conclude that the buyers are entitled to recover the $1.5 million deposit in restitution, and that the tort claims are barred by the gist of the action doctrine. View "Addie v. Kjaer" on Justia Law

Egg Harbor Township authorized construction of a Community Center and, as required by N.J.S. 52:38-3 adopted a project labor agreement (PLA). All contractors working on the project were required to sign the PLA, which contained a “supremacy provision,” providing that the PLA, with the local Collective Bargaining Agreements, superseded any national agreement, local agreement or other collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Sambe, the general contractor, signed the PLA. Sambe subcontracted roofing work to Donnelly, which signed the PLA and agreed that any party it selected to perform work would also be required to sign the PLA. Donnelly selected the Carpenters Union to perform the work, even though it was not a signatory to the PLA, apparently because the two were parties to a CBA. Sheet Metal Workers protested. The NLRB assigned the work to Carpenters and later concluded that Sheet Metal violated the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 185, by maintaining a section 301 suit against Donnelly and Sambe following that decision. In the parallel litigation district court granted summary judgment on Sheet Metal’s breach of contract claim. The Third Circuit granted the NLRB’s petition for enforcement of its order; vacated the breach of contract judgment against Donnelly and Sambe; and remanded the with directions to enter judgment in favor of Donnelly and to conduct further proceedings on the claim against Sambe. View "Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n v. E.P. Donnelly, Inc." on Justia Law

The multinational telecommunications firm Nortel declared bankruptcy in 2009 and various debtors comprising the Nortel brand auctioned their business lines and intellectual property, raising $7.5 billion. The debtors subsequently disputed whether they had agreed to allocate the auction funds through arbitration. The Bankruptcy Court held that they had not agreed to arbitrate their disputes about allocation. The Third Circuit affirmed: the contract at issue does not reflect the debtors’ intent to arbitrate disputes about the auction funds. The court declined to consider the Joint Administrators’ related challenge to the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to allocate the contested funds, noting that the Bankruptcy Court has not yet held the hearing to allocate the funds, so that review would be premature. View "In Re: Nortel Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

Jang, a doctor and inventor, sued BSC, the company to which Jang assigned his coronary stent patents, for breach of the patent assignment agreement, which required BSC to share profits from the patents with Jang, including any damages it recovers from third-party infringers. In 2010, BSC settled a claim against Cordis for infringement in combination with anther claim that Cordis had against BSC. BSC made a payment to Cordis, and the parties exchanged several patent licenses. BSC then denied that it had recovered any damages that it was obligated to share with Jang. The Third Circuit reversed judgment on the pleadings in favor of BSC. Two of Jang’s claims are sufficient to survive judgment on the pleadings: that BSC breached the contract because the cash offset qualifies as a “recovery of damages” and that BSC violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by structuring a settlement to thwart the agreed purpose of the patent assignment. View "Jang v. Boston Scientific SciMed Inc." on Justia Law

In 2007, Gager applied for a line of credit to purchase computer equipment. The application required that she provide her home phone number. Gager listed her cellular phone number without stating that the number was for a cellular phone, or indicating that Dell should not use an automated telephone dialing system to call her at that number. Gager defaulted on the loan Dell granted. Dell began using an automated telephone dialing system to call Gager’s cell phone, leaving pre-recorded messages concerning the debt. In 2010, Gager sent a letter, listing her phone number and asking Dell to stop calling it regarding her account. The letter did not indicate that the number was for a cellular phone. Dell continued to call, using an automated telephone dialing system. Gager filed suit, alleging that Dell violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The district court dismissed on the theory that she could not revoke her consent once it was given. The Third Circuit reversed. The fact that Gager entered into a contract with Dell does not exempt Dell from the TCPA. Dell will still be able to call Gager about her delinquent account, but not using an automated dialing system. View "Gager v. Dell Fin. Servs. LLC" on Justia Law

In 1999, I-4 leased Florida land to Lazy Days, with an option to purchase, prohibiting assignment without written consent. In 2008, Lazy Days notified I-4 of its intention to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and assign the lease to LDRV. The parties negotiated a settlement agreement in 2009. I-4 consented to assignment. Lazy Days agreed not to “argue against the Bankruptcy Court abstaining from consideration of Lease interpretation issues ... except to the extent necessary in connection with the assumption and assignment of the Lease.” The agreement provided that “there is no intent to, nor is the Lease modified in any respect,” but did not state whether the purchase option survived. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed a reorganization plan incorporating the agreement and closed the case in 2010. In 2011, LDRV attempted to exercise the option. The parties each filed state court lawsuits and LDRV moved to reopen in Bankruptcy Court, which held that the anti-assignment provision was unenforceable and that refusal to honor the option violated the agreement. The district court vacated. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the Bankruptcy Court properly exercised jurisdiction; the agreement’s exception applied because the proceeding was “in connection with ... assignment of the Lease.” The court rejected arguments that the parties agreed to waive application of 11 U.S.C. 365(f)(3) and that the Bankruptcy Court committed an unconstitutional taking and denied I-4 due process. View "In Re: Lazy Days' RV Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

GSK holds patent and FDA rights to market and sell the pharmaceutical (paroxetine hydrochloride) controlled release tablets for treatment of depression, under the brand name Paxil. Under a 2007 settlement agreement, GSK granted Mylan certain rights to produce, market, and sell generic paroxetine. In 2010, GSK agreed, in an unrelated settlement, to begin supplying Apotex with GSK-produced generic paroxetine for marketing and sale. Mylan sued GSK and Apotex, claiming the 2010 agreement violated its licensing agreement, which did not permit GSK to provide its own form of generic paroxetine to another generic drug company to be marketed and sold in direct competition with Mylan. The district court found that the terms of the agreement were unambiguous and did not limit to whom GSK was permitted to market and sell its own version of generic paroxetine. The Third Circuit reversed the order of summary judgment on the breach-of-contract cause of action against GSK, but affirmed summary judgment on other claims. View "Mylan Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp." on Justia Law

In 2009, the Union submitted three grievances on behalf of Company employee and Union member Lubik, alleging that the company violated a past practice by failing to schedule Lubik, a maintenance clerk, for Saturday overtime when the maintenance department was scheduled to work. After the Arbitrator sustained the three grievances and ordered the company to pay Lubik back wages for the missed overtime. The district court vacated the award because it concluded that the award did not draw its essence from the Collective Bargaining Agreement, determining that the plain language of the CBA unambiguously‖ gave the company the exclusive right to schedule its workforce. The Third Circuit reversed and ordered enforcement of the arbitration award. View "Akers Nat'l Roll Co. v. United Steel, Paper & Forest,Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union" on Justia Law

The Sponsors formed West Run to construct and manage West Virginia University off-campus housing and retained CBRE to secure financing. CBRE provided prospective lenders with confidential information. Huntington’s predecessor loaned $39.975 million and construction began. A competing project (Copper Beach) was built across the street. West Run learned that Huntington had loaned $20 million for that project; West Run alleged that Huntington divulged to Copper Beach proprietary West Run information provided by CBRE. West Run‘s occupancy dropped from 95 percent to 64 percent. West Run sued, alleging that Huntington had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by financing Copper Beech. Two similar projects, involving the Sponsors, alleged breach of contract based on Huntington‘s failure to provide funds under their construction loan agreements. Huntington claimed that they had sold insufficient units to require Huntington to disburse additional funds under the agreements. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed in part, holding that the complaint contained no corroborating facts that confidential information was disclosed and that no contract terms prohibited Huntington from lending to competitors. The court vacated with respect to the other projects for a chance to provide evidence showing that the pre-sale numbers in the original complaint were incorrect. View "W. Run Student Hous. v. Huntington Nat'l Bank" on Justia Law