Breach of Contract Cases

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL – MOTION TO DISMISS – CIV.R. 12(B)(7) – JOINDER – CIV.R. 19 – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – R.C. 2721.12 – NECESSARY PARTIES – CONTRACTS – BREACH OF CONTRACT – SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE – EXCUSE – SECURITY SEWAGE – IMPOSSIBILITY – REGULATORY IMPOSSIBILITY – GOOD FAITH – REMEDIES – DAMAGES: A prior determination by a federal court that a county regulation was not so "arbitrary and capricious" as to defy the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution did not collaterally estop plaintiff from litigating the entirely distinct issue of whether the county's application of the same regulation was "arbitrary" and therefore unforeseeable, so as to excuse plaintiff's contractual performance, regardless of similarities in terminology.

Arbitration; stay of proceedings; contract. Trial court did not err when it granted appellee's motion to stay proceedings pending submission to arbitration, where it found that the parties had agreed to the arbitration agreement and that the subject of the claim was covered under that agreement.

Innovative Waste Management brought this action against Dunhill Products, Crest Energy Partners, Henry Wuertz, and Edward Girardeau asserting claims for, among other claims, breach of contract, fraud, and misappropriation of trade secrets. After seven years of discovery, the circuit court found the Petitioners in contempt for violating prior discovery orders and sanctioned them by striking their answer and counterclaims. Petitioners appealed to the court of appeals, which affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Innovative Waste Management v. Crest Energy Partners GP, LLC, et al., Unpub. Op. No. 2023-UP-126 (Ct. App. 2023). We granted certiorari to decide whether the court of appeals erred in finding (1) that the Petitioners waived review of the trial court's interlocutory discovery orders under Davis v. Parkview Apartments, 409 S.C. 266, 762 S.E.2d 535 (2014); and (2) that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by striking Petitioners' answer and counter claims under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), SCRCP. We adopt the well-reasoned opinion of the court of appeals and affirm.