/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.616434]

alright, anyone understand the law here?
/biz/ related because it's a civil case, one business suing another. USA.

plaintiff made a move for summary judgment, most claims were dismissed but the first claim over breach of contract was granted summary judgment. another claim was not granted in summary judgment but was not dismissed per an opposing claim by defense.

so...what the fuck happens? they mention on setting a trial date to determine damage amounts for the first claim, but what about the other claim that wasn't accepted on summary judgment but wasn't dismissed either? does that go to a separate trial?

pic related, mfw trying to understand it.

[Anonymous No.616436]

>>616434
What wad the disposition of the summary judgment, and what are the alleged charges.

[Anonymous No.616439]

>>616436
i'll keep it brief but the main charge was that they on numerous occasions and against numerous provisions of the contract violated a lease. a lot of the dismissed charges were related, but were essentially dismissed on the grounds that once the contract was deemed valid, they didn't apply.
it's a non-final disposition.

summary judgment was accepted on breach of contract in a loss amount estimated to be 7 digits (worsened over time).
summary judgment was not granted (but the charges weren't dismissed either) on unlawfully interfering with the lawful and rightful possession of the leased property (physical items, not land) and violating court orders. importantly, the last claim on violating court orders claimed liability against a much larger party, as the complaint stated that the larger party was a principle of the party that was sued.

[Anonymous No.616457]

>>616439 here
let me give context.... bit of a story but it's unreal shit
>Defendant agrees to lease equipment from Plaintiff under a lease agreement with a specified term and dollar amount per term
>the lease has numerous provisions including that equipment must be returned in same shape. if equipment is damaged, it must be replaced at replacement value (not depreciated value of the equipment in used equipment). They must insure it at $XX,XXX,XXX with the plaintiff listed as secondary insured, and must deliver it at the end of the lease to a any site designated by plaintiff within a certain distance
>defendant agrees and pays a few lease terms
>they stop paying the lease and won't return it
>plaintiff designates multiple sites to deliver equipment, defendant refuses. Plaintiff files suit with exhibits and affidavits saying that they visually can see defendant continue to use equipment.
>court orders them to maintain adequate insurance and deliver equipment where told
>non-act of god foreseeable disaster happens. equipment is in entirety reduced to scrap.
>defendant is a cost plus operation run by a much larger third party with huge pockets. realizing the potential liability from it, shit really starts flying.
>turns out defendant did not have a separate insurance policy in the specified amount for the leased equipment only, but a general insurance policy for half that. losses on all equipment, including from other third parties, far exceeds the amount of insured.

[Anonymous No.616462]

>>616457
>insurer of defendant offers a check for about 1/10th replacement value to plaintiff, not including loss of use and non-paid lease terms. defendant locks it in a safe until it expires. meanwhile, they give checks to third parties they were not required to insure in a larger amount than what they gave plaintiff (namely, they gave a majority of their money to their principle)
>lawsuit drags on as defendant claims they were paternalistic and injects commentary into court logs to entirely change their meaning
>court grants summary judgment on the breach of contract claim
>claims on loss of use and disobeying the court order (where the much larger 3rd party principle is declared as liable) were not given summary judgement but not dismissed.

The entire thing is a shit-show. Question is, how likely is it the third party is held to account as principle, and how does that proceed.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.616537]

If summary judgement was granted on the breach of contract claim, its within the discretion of the court to convene a damages trial on that phase while holding the remaining claims in abeyance. This avoids wasted time and effort since the plaintiff may decide that they've been fully compensated by the damages from the firs count (in which case they'll elect to dismiss the remaining claims).

Of course, there's no requirement that they dismiss the remaining claims (assuming that they survive the disposition of the contract claim). That's for the plaintiff )and ultimately the court) to decide.

So, no, the third-party (the parent of the defendant, if I understand your explanation correctly) is most definitely not off the hook yet. Most courts take very seriously any allegations that a party defied court orders.

A completely separate question is whether the third-party actually has any liability in this situation. Principal-agency law (and alter-ego or veil piercing) cases are very fact intensive affairs, and you haven't provided nearly enough detail to comment on that aspect.

[Anonymous No.616541]

>>616537
Not sure if joking or if really this clueless...

[Anonymous No.616564]

>>616537
I thought the 3rd party was the insurance company.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.616567]

>>616564
>I thought the 3rd party was the insurance company

That's not what he said.

>>616457
>defendant is a cost plus operation run by a much larger third party with huge pockets

[Anonymous No.616580]

>>616537
>assuming that they survive the disposition of the contract claim
possible. from what is understood, the principal runs the defendant as an operator on the property and pays for all their expenses plus a percent. It's actually in their financial interest to be inefficient to a degree.

>Most courts take very seriously any allegations that a party defied court orders.
They didn't address it at this juncture but the fact that they did not is not even an allegation of fact at this point. They were instructed to deliver the equipment to multiple sites within the distance specified within the contract, they did not for bullshit reasons the court told them was not acceptable. They were instructed by the court to maintain adequate separate insurance, they did not.

>A completely separate question is whether the third-party actually has any liability in this situation. Principal-agency law (and alter-ego or veil piercing) cases are very fact intensive affairs, and you haven't provided nearly enough detail to comment on that aspect.
The third party is paying for defendant's counsel. They have separately employed their own counsel. They have a confidential agreement (not entirely visible to me but I'm aware of vague nature) to run defendant at cost plus, including legal expenses. Legally the entity is separate but it is a subsidized agent.

[Anonymous No.616594]

>>616580
You have to take everything iHaz posts with a grain of salt. Techically he is a lawyer, but hes a Jewish Lawyer. Big distinction there. Dirty kikes interpret the law a lot differently than, lets say, you or I would. If you think about it, hes one step below one of those ditsy blonde paralegals. At least you enjoy it when they fuck you.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.616600]

>>616580
>the principal runs the defendant
>pays for all their expenses
These are certainly facts that tend to indicate that the third-party may have liability, whether under an agency theory or otherwise.

However, as I said above, its a very complex, fact-intensive analysis. Neither I nor anyone else is going to be able to give you an accurate assessment on this issue without access to a full range of details and documents, and after an investment of many hours.