Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Goat Island South Condominium (GIS) was comprised of three subcondominium residence areas - Harbor Houses Condominium (Harbor Houses), America Condominium (America), and Capella South Condominium (Capella). The Constellation Trust owned Unit 18 in Harbor Houses. Plaintiffs, America and Capella, filed an action against Defendants, the trustee of the Trust and Harbor Houses, seeking injunctive relief to bring a halt to the expansion of Unit 18 onto a limited common element. The trial justice concluded (1) Defendants were liable for breach of contract and for committing a common law trespass, (2) Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendants breached restrictive covenants contained in the GIS Second Amended and Restated Declaration of Condominium (GIS SAR) was moot, and (3) Plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the trial justice erred in failing to award attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs based on the terms of the GIS SAR; and (2) the trial court did not otherwise err in its judgment. View "America Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Mardo" on Justia Law

Defendants defaulted on a loan. At the ensuing foreclosure proceedings, Plaintiff purchased the property securing the loan. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants seeking to secure the resulting deficiency. Count 1 alleged breach of the promissory note against both defendants, and count 2 alleged a breach of guaranty against one defendant. Defendants counterclaimed. The trial justice granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and dismissed the counterclaims. The trial justice then awarded Plaintiff attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the superior court’s judgment, holding (1) the court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on claims of the breach of promissory note and breach of guaranty, as well as its dismissal of Defendants’ counterclaims; but (2) the superior court erred in awarding Plaintiff attorney’s fees without considering the testimony or affidavit of independent counsel. View "Tri-Town Constr. Co. v. Commerce Park Assocs. 12, LLC" on Justia Law

Cashman sued, alleging Cardi provided defective cofferdams for construction of the Sakonnet River Bridge. Cofferdams are temporary watertight enclosures that are pumped dry to expose the bottom of a body of water so that construction can occur. During discovery, Cashman sought, and Cardi refused to produce, computer models and draft reports that had been “considered by” its testifying engineering expert to determine “certain stress and loads that are going to be placed on certain points on this cofferdam,” including models “that [the expert] created which [he] may not have relied on but certainly would’ve considered” and draft reports. Cardi argued that Rule 26(b)(4)(A) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure does not allow discovery of materials “considered by” an expert in forming an expert opinion. The hearing justice concluded that he did not have the authority to compel production of the material. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, after considering interpretations of the corresponding Federal Rule. The state rule is “clear and unambiguous” and is confined to discovery through interrogatories or deposition. It does not provide for the disclosure of documents. View "Cashman Equip. Corp., Inc. v. Cardi Corp., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging breach of fiduciary duty resulting from oppressive conduct, breach of fiduciary duty resulting from self-dealing, fraud in the inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. During trial, Plaintiff produced 155 pages of documents that had not been produced to Defendants during discovery. Defendants argued that they were denied a fair trial because the information contained in the documents would have permitted them to properly cross-examine Plaintiff. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. Civ. P. 37(b) as a sanction for the mid-trial production of documents. The court subsequently denied Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order of dismissal under Sup. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in dismissing Plaintiff’s claim with prejudice pursuant to Rule 37; and (2) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. View "Joachim v. Straight Line Prods., LLC" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a number of disputes that arose after the defendant corporation, Nuzzo Campion Stone Enterprises, Inc. (NCS), was purchased by its present owner. Plaintiff James Nuzzo alleged that he was owed $133,816 in unpaid commissions on orders that had been placed prior to his termination but not actually paid for by customers of NCS until after his termination. NCS filed a counterclaim for breach of contract, alleging that Plaintiff failed to indemnify NCS for certain amounts covered by the terms of an Asset Purchase Agreement signed by the parties. The trial justice concluded that Plaintiff was not entitled to the disputed commissions and that NCS was due nearly $17,000 for both “work in progress” and warranty work pursuant to the Agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in determining that Plaintiff was not entitled to commissions for orders that had been placed, but not actually paid for, prior to Plaintiff’s termination; and (2) the trial justice did not make “fundamental mistakes regarding the contract and damages” relating to the counterclaim. View "Nuzzo v. Nuzzo Campion Stone Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

At dispute in this decade-old case was the various rice dishes offered for sale in the food court at the Providence Place Mall. These consolidated appeals represented the second and third times that the Supreme Court was asked to entertain fragmented issues. Cathay Cathay, Inc., Japan Cafe of Providence Place, Inc., Surf & Turf Grille, Inc., and Gourmet India all entered into lease agreements to operate restaurants in the food court. Each lease agreement set forth restrictions on the foods each restaurant could serve. Cathay Cathay and Surf & Turf (collectively Plaintiffs) brought this action against Rouse Providence, LLC, Gourmet India, and Japan Cafe seeking to enjoin the two restaurants from selling the foods to which they had alleged exclusive rights. Plaintiffs also requested that the court order Rouse to enforce its lease agreements with Cathay Cathay and Surf & Turf against Gourmet India and Japan Cafe, alleging that the restaurants violated their lease agreements by selling prohibited foods. After protracted litigation, a second trial justice entered partial final judgment in favor of Rouse. The Supreme Court vacated the partial final judgment, holding that the trial justice abused her discretion in determining that there was a previous adjudication on the merits of Plaintiffs’ contractual claims against Rouse. Remanded. View "Cathay Cathay, Inc. v. Vindalu, LLC" on Justia Law

After Strine Printing Company terminated Richard Bisbano’s employment, Bisbano filed an eight count complaint against Strine Printing and its president, alleging, inter alia, wrongful termination. During the pendency of that lawsuit, the parties disagreed about the exact amount of commissions that Strine owed Bisbano. The federal district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts. Bisbano subsequently filed another lawsuit against Strine Printing and Menasha Packaging Company, LLC in superior court, alleging unpaid commissions. The trial justice ruled in favor of Defendants, concluding that the three-year statute of limitations contained in Rhode Island’s Payment of Wages Act barred the claim and that res judicata barred Bisbano’s contract claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this action was barred by the statute of limitations contained in the Payment of Wages Act; and (2) because the statute of limitations issue is dispositive, the Court shall not address the issue of res judicata. View "Bisbano v. Strine Printing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, the trial justice entered judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. The justice also entered judgment in favor of Defendant on his counterclaim for conversion. Plaintiff appealed the adverse rulings and also appealed the denial of her post-trial motion for relief from the superior court judgment, which motion invoked Rule 60(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court, holding that the trial justice did not err in (1) determining that there was no contract; (2) finding in Defendant’s favor on his conversion counterclaim; and (3) dismissing Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion. View "Turdo v. Main" on Justia Law

Defendant, an attorney, represented Plaintiff in post-final judgment divorce proceedings. Defendant later withdrew as counsel with the family court’s approval. Three years later, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging legal malpractice, negligence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The superior court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant on each of Plaintiff’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s legal malpractice and fraud claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the trial justice did not err in concluding that the discovery rule did not toll the statute of limitations; (2) Plaintiff’s malpractice claims necessarily failed because she did not retain an expert witness to testify in support of her case; and (3) Plaintiff’s remaining claims on appeal were wholly without merit. View "Behroozi v. Kirshenbaum" on Justia Law

Sophie Danforth entered into a purchase and sales agreement (PSA) with Timothy and Rebecca More, pursuant to which Danforth agreed to sell, and the Mores agreed to purchase, certain real estate. The PSA provided that $30,000 would be paid as a deposit at the time the PSA was executed. The Mores failed to appear at the scheduled closing. Thereafter, Danforth filed an amended complaint alleging breach of contract, requesting that she be allowed to retain the Mores’ deposit, and seeking declaratory relief, asking the court to construe the terms of the PSA and to order the escrow agent to disburse the deposit to Danforth. The hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of Danforth, concluding that Danforth was entitled to retain the deposit. The court further denied Danforth’s motion for attorney’s fees but awarded prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the grant of summary judgment in favor of Danforth, the award of prejudgment interest to Danforth, and the denial of attorneys’ fees. View "Danforth v. More" on Justia Law