Westgate Myrtle Beach, LLC v. Holiday Hospitality Franch.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:08-cv-03590-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998871979].. [11-1644]

Appeal: 11-1644

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/11/2012

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1644

WESTGATE MYRTLE BEACH, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company,
Plaintiff − Appellant,
v.
HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendant − Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (4:08-cv-03590-JMC)

Argued:

May 16, 2012

Decided:

June 11, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Ronald Hawthorne Barrett, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM &
LANEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Merritt
Gordon
Abney,
NELSON
MULLINS
RILEY
&
SCARBOROUGH,
LLP,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: John S.
Wilkerson, III, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, PA, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Richard A. Farrier, Jr., NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Appeal: 11-1644

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/11/2012

Pg: 2 of 5

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1644

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/11/2012

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
This

appeal

arises

from

the

purchase

by

Appellant

Westgate Myrtle Beach, LLC (“Westgate”), a timeshare developer,
of a beachfront resort property from an entity known as MB Inn,
Inc.

(“MBII”),

pursuant

to

which
a

operated

license

the

property

agreement

with

as

a

Holiday

Appellee

Inn

Holiday

Hospitality Franchising, Inc. (“Holiday”). 1 Westgate and Holiday
entered into a Temporary License Agreement (“TLA”) that allowed
Westgate to continue to operate the property as a Holiday Inn
for six months following the closing.
The TLA was extended several times to permit continued
negotiations
timeshare

about

resort

in

the

possibility

conjunction

with

of
a

Westgate
Holiday

opening
Inn

at

a
the

property on a long-term basis. Ultimately, Westgate and Holiday
failed to reach agreement, and the TLA expired.

Pursuant to the

TLA, Westgate operated the property as a Holiday Inn until the
TLA expired and paid Holiday licensing fees specified in the TLA
for this period.
Thereafter,

Westgate

filed

suit

against

Holiday

alleging claims for unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel.
Holiday denied Westgate’s allegations and, asserting that its

1

MBII was not involved in the litigation giving rise to
this appeal.

3

Appeal: 11-1644

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/11/2012

Pg: 4 of 5

defense of Westgate’s claims constituted an “enforcement” of its
rights

under

the

TLA,

it

counterclaimed

for

recovery

of

its

attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to the TLA.
At
granted

the

summary

conclusion
judgment

in

of

discovery,

favor

of

the

Holiday

district
on

the

court

merits;

indeed, Westgate conceded that Holiday was entitled to summary
judgment

on

Westgate’s

claims

for

unjust

enrichment

and

promissory estoppel. 2 Subsequently, the district court granted
Holiday’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for
attorneys’ fees and expenses and denied Westgate’s cross-motion
seeking dismissal of the same. Specifically, the court found
that Holiday was entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $235,760.40, and costs and expenses in the amount of
$69,056.05.
Westgate timely appeals, contending principally that
Holiday is not entitled to recover its fees and costs because
Holiday was not “enforcing” its rights under the TLA but was
merely defending non-contractual claims arising independently of
the TLA.

Westgate also contends, in the alternative, that the

amount of the district court’s award is unreasonable.

2

At oral argument before us, Westgate explained that the
suit was filed with an expectation that certain evidence
supporting its claims would emerge during discovery, but that by
the time Holiday’s motion for summary judgment was ripe for
determination, such evidence had not been obtained.
4

Appeal: 11-1644

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/11/2012

Pg: 5 of 5

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having
carefully reviewed the briefs, record and applicable law, we
agree with the district court’s analysis as set forth in its
well-reasoned orders. See Westgate Myrtle Beach, LLC v. Holiday
Hospitality

Franchising,

Inc.,

No.

4:08-cv-03590-JMC,

2010

WL

4751573 (D.S.C. Nov. 16, 2010); Westgate Myrtle Beach, LLC v.
Holiday

Hospitality

Franchising,

Inc.,

No.

4:08-cv-03590-JMC

(D.S.C. June 2, 2011), ECF No. 76. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment for the reasons stated by the district court.

AFFIRMED

5