Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a supplier of outdoor power equipment, gave defendant, a disttributer of such equipment, as well as of irrigation equipment, a distributor agreement with a multi-state territory. After about four years, plaintiff provided notice of termination and shifted sales to another distributor. Defendant was in significant debt, its lenders had refused to loan it any more money. Defendant is now out of business. During the contract period, defendant also distributed products for other companies. Plaintiff claimed that defendant owed for products purchased. The district court ruled in favor of plaintiff on the breach of contract claim and rejected defendant's claims of wrongful termination and that the new distributor improperly induced plaintiff to terminate. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Rejecting a Connecticut Franchise Act claim, the court noted that defendant failed to show that more than 50 percent of its business resulted from its relationship with plaintiff. The district court properly awarded interest and rejected claims of unjust enrichment and tortious interference.

The parties, involved in patent infringement cases, agreed to a settlement that required dismissal of their lawsuits and included an arbitration provision and request that a bank subordinate its interests in defendant's patents to the settlement. Defendant stated that the bank had agreed; the parties executed the agreement and dismissed their suits. When plaintiff became aware that the bank would not cooperate, defendant demanded arbitration, but plaintiff went to court to vacate dismissal of its claims and seek compliance with the agreement. The court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Before the Federal Circuit ruled on an appeal, the parties participated in mediation. Plaintiff took a voluntary dismissal, then filed new claims, including claims against defendant's bank and attorneys, claiming that defendant and its attorneys lied or the bank reneged on its commitment. The district court held that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate and that the bank and attorneys, not parties to the settlement, could not be compelled to arbitrate. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part, holding that defendant's participation in earlier litigation did not amount to waiver under the Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. 1, and vacated with respect to the bank and attorneys. Plaintiff may want to arbitrate with those parties if it must arbitrate with defendant.

In 1992 two companies began a joint venture to develop peptide compounds. The agreement provides that inventions created by joint efforts are jointly owned, but inventions attributable to a single party are owned by that party and that disputes will be arbitrated. In court-ordered arbitration, a panel decided that a certain group of patents are jointly owned, but that another group is owned by defendant. The district court confirmed those rulings, but vacated a ruling in defendant's favor on foreign patents. Holding that appeal is authorized by 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(1)(E), and that the dispute does not concern patent law, but is a contract issue, the Seventh Circuit reversed. The Federal Arbitration Act authorizes a court to vacate an award for any of four reasons, 9 U.S.C. 10(a); a conclusion that the arbitrators disregarded the law by failing to discuss the foreign patents separately from the domestic patents did not justify vacating the award. The judge mistakenly inferred from silence that the arbitrators must have had an extra-contractual ground; the arbitrators had no reason to discuss the foreign patents separately from the domestic patents.

Plaintiff owns 2,485 acres containing Indiana's only antebellum plantation and 2,000 acres of "classified forest," with endangered species habitats. A utility company has a lease for storing and extracting oil and natural gas on portions of the property. The Lease continues so long as "oil or gas is produced in paying quantities" or "the Property continues to be used for the underground storage of gas" and will terminate upon the utility's surrender or failure to make payments. The lease contains provisions to protect historic sites and to calculate damage to trees, requires notice of utility activity, and requires that the utility's use be "as minimally necessary." Plaintiff sought damages and to terminate the lease and evict the utility. The district court entered judgment for the utility, finding that a disagreement about the use of land was not an express reason for termination and that the lease specifically provided that damages were the proper remedy. Plaintiff dismissed the damages claim with prejudice to appeal the ejectment claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff did not show that damages are inadequate to compensate for the harm to its property.

In 2000, plaintiff sold 6600 acres of farmland for $16.35 million to an environmental organization, which wanted to restore it as an ecologically functional floodplain for the Illinois River. Plaintiff expressly warranted that there was no petroleum contamination. The organization discovered such contamination and sued. The district court awarded $800,000 in damages, some for a separate breach, failure to clean up livestock waste from lagoons. Plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed and filed suit against the local drainage district, which had a right of way and equipment on the land to pump surface waters into the river. The district stored petroleum in tanks; at least one was on the organization's land. The organization, wanting to restore the land as wetlands, turned off the pumps. The district court entered summary judgment for the district. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A blameless contract breaker cannot invoke noncontractual indemnity to shift risk that he assumed in a contract. The suit is also barred by the economic-loss doctrine, based in part on concern with liability for unforeseeable consequences.

Plaintiff, a freight railroad, owned a spur line connecting to a plastics plant, the only shipper located on the spur. Defendant, another railroad, bought the lines, including the spur. The sales contract allowed plaintiff to continue to run trains on the lines being sold and granted plaintiff an exclusive easement to use the spur to serve the plant. Several years later, the plant entered receivership. The receiver sold all assets, including the plant. The buyer continues to manufacture plastics in the plant. Contending that the change in ownership voided the exclusive easement, defendant contracted with the buyer to ship products over the spur, leaving plaintiff with diminished use of the spur. The district court ruled in favor of defendant, reasoning that the contract referred specifically to the plastics company in business at that time. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, based on the language of the contract in light of extrinsic evidence, and rejected a trespass claim.

In a loan-and-supply contract, plaintiff agreed to provide defendant with a $150,000 loan that would be gradually forgiven over five years as defendant purchased specified quantities of motor-oil products from plaintiff. The typewritten contract included a handwritten note stating that the "Agreement will terminate after 225,000 gallons and 225,000 filters of Exxon/Mobil is purchased or 60 months, whichever comes first." Defendant stopped buying products from plaintiff after only two years, having purchased only 55,296 gallons and 61,551 filters. The district court entered summary judgment for plaintiff. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the handwritten provision relieved plaintiff of any liability after 60 months (after July 1, 2008) regardless of the amount of product it purchased.

A successful Ford dealership in Iowa offered to assist struggling Middleton, Wisconsin dealership. The parties agreed that Iowa's general manager would provide management services to Middleton with compensation to begin after he turned Middleton profitable and also that Iowa would provide capital in exchange for an ownership interest. Negotiations continued after the manager started working at Middleton, but the parties never reached a more specific agreement. The relationship broke down after 11 months because Iowa failed to come forward with the expected cash. Still not earning a profit, Middleton did not pay for the manager's services. After a remand, the district court again entered judgment for Iowa, finding that Middleton became profitable during the manager's tenure and fired him before he had a fair opportunity to restore profitability. The Seventh Circuit reversed, stating that the factual findings were inconsistent and clearly erroneous. Iowa is not entitled to quasi-contractual compensation for services under either quantum meruit or unjust enrichment.

The company terminated plaintiff's employment in 2008 because he failed to meet his sales quota. A suit for unpaid wages under Wisconsin's wage-claim statute, alternatively seeking recovery under equitable contract doctrines, was rejected and the district court denied leave to amend. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although plaintiff was an at-will employee, his commission-based compensation was the subject of an express contract, which, under Wisconsin law, precludes quasi-contractual relief. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because the motion came unjustifiably late.

In attempting to enroll his infant daughter, a covered employee failed to complete parts of the form indicating whether the child resided with employee, was dependent upon employee for more than 50 percent support and maintenance, and whether the child qualified to be claimed as a tax exemption on employee's federal tax return. The plan made several inquiries before sending a notice that coverage was denied. The employee did not appeal. The plan sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act , 29 U.S.C. 1001, to recover $472,357.84 paid to the medical college and $1,199,538.58 paid to the hospital on behalf of the child. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the ERISA claim. The plan reserves the right to recover against "covered persons" if it has paid them or any other party on their behalf. Neither the treating entities nor the child are covered persons. Because the plan is not implicated, state law claims were not preempted; the court reversed dismissal of those claims. Plaintiffs' position was not unreasonable; the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees.