DH-1, LLC v. City of Falls City, 938 N.W.2d 319

Background

Falls City sued NMPP, CPEP, and others alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy; the litigation produced no final verdict or settlement in favor of Falls City on the covered claims.
Falls City retained two law firms under a November 20, 2006 contingency fee agreement: $15,000 initial fee plus 40% of unreversed recoveries (50% if appealed), expressly tying fees to amounts “recovered by settlement or otherwise in connection with this litigation” and to noncash or structured-settlement present values.
While litigation was pending, APEA was dissolved and its assets were distributed; NPGA received $9.8 million and Falls City (as an NPGA member) received $1,567,570.02.
The firms sought contingency fees based on the APEA distribution and alleged improved equity positions; Falls City refused to pay. The firms assigned their claims to DH‑1, LLC and sued for $1,487,785.60.
The district court granted summary judgment for Falls City, holding the contingency was not triggered (no covered verdict/settlement) and that the firms had not identified services outside the fee agreement to support equitable recovery; the firms appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contingency fee agreement entitled the firms to fees for the APEA withdrawal/distribution	Agreement language is broad — covers claims pursued on behalf of Falls City and members and contemplates recovery in noncash or structured forms; fees therefore due on benefits Falls City received consequential to the litigation	Contingency applies only to amounts recovered by settlement or verdict in the specified litigation; no such recovery occurred here so no fee is owed	Court held the agreement expressly tied fees to recoveries in the litigation; contingency not met, so no contract fee due
Whether firms could recover under equitable doctrines (quasi‑contract/unjust enrichment) for work outside the fee agreement	Firms asserted unjust enrichment/quantum meruit for benefits Falls City received and for services not covered by the contingency agreement	Falls City argued the contract covers the subject matter, equitable claims are displaced, and the firms failed to identify or substantiate any noncontract work in discovery	Court held contractual claim superseded equitable relief for covered matters; firms failed to specify services outside the agreement, so summary judgment for Falls City on equitable claims was proper
Standing of assignee DH‑1 to sue on the assigned legal claims	DH‑1 is the assignee of the firms’ legal claims and thus the real party in interest with standing	Falls City argued DH‑1 was an unlicensed collection agency lacking standing	Court held assignment was on the record and DH‑1, as assignee, has standing to sue
Whether the statute of limitations barred the firms’ claims	Firms contended claims were timely	Falls City asserted claims were time‑barred	Court did not address the statute‑of‑limitations argument because Falls City did not cross‑appeal that issue on appeal

Key Cases Cited

City of Falls City v. Nebraska Mun. Power Pool, 279 Neb. 238 (2010) (prior appeal reversing damages for lack of standing).
City of Falls City v. Nebraska Mun. Power Pool, 281 Neb. 230 (2011) (postremand order on costs).
Wintroub v. Nationstar Mortgage, 303 Neb. 15 (2019) (contract interpretation and summary judgment standards).
Meyer Natural Foods v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 302 Neb. 509 (2019) (when contract language is unambiguous it must be enforced as written; ambiguity rules).
Bloedorn Lumber Co. v. Nielson, 300 Neb. 722 (2018) (quasi‑contract/unjust enrichment principles and interaction with express contracts).
City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Neb., 282 Neb. 848 (2011) (restatement of unjust enrichment/restitution standards).