Monopoly Hotel Group, LLC v. Hyatt Hotels Corporation

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Monopoly Hotel Group, LLC. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-16126

Date Filed: 07/31/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16126
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01250-AT

MONOPOLY HOTEL GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 31, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-16126

Date Filed: 07/31/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Monopoly Hotel Group, LLC, appeals the grant of summary judgment in
favor of Hyatt Hotels Corporation and against its complaint of breach of contract
and breach of fiduciary duty. Monopoly entered into a licensing agreement with
Hawthorn International, LLC, that permitted Monopoly to develop hotels abroad
using the Hawthorn Suites brand. The chief executive officer of Hawthorn later
sent Monopoly a letter stating that if Monopoly would agree to a few conditions—
including allowing Hyatt to have a role in approving development projects
submitted by Monopoly—then Hawthorn would alter certain terms in the licensing
agreement. Monopoly agreed. Monopoly asserts that this agreement created a
contract between Hyatt and Monopoly either because the chief executive officer of
Hawthorn sent the letter on behalf of Hyatt or because Hyatt accepted the benefits
of the contract by approving development projects submitted by Monopoly.
Monopoly also asserts that it was in a fiduciary relationship with Hyatt.
This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether Hyatt and Monopoly were
parties to a contract; and (2) whether Hyatt and Monopoly were in a fiduciary
relationship. Monopoly presents no evidence that warrants a reasonable inference
that Hyatt was a party to a contract with Monopoly, nor does Monopoly offer any
evidence that Hyatt had a fiduciary duty to Monopoly. For these reasons and the

2

Case: 16-16126

Date Filed: 07/31/2017

Page: 3 of 3

reasons stated in the well-reasoned order of the district court dated August 16,
2016, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Hyatt.

3