James Dunlap v. Todd Leff

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00272-AWA-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999381700].. [11-2327]

Appeal: 11-2327

Doc: 72

Filed: 06/24/2014

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2327

JAMES M. DUNLAP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COTTMAN TRANSMISSIONS SYSTEMS, LLC; TODD P. LEFF,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00272-AWA-DEM)

Argued:

May 14, 2013

Decided:

June 24, 2014

Before Sandra Day O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Retired), Supreme
Court of the United States, sitting by designation, and WYNN and
DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED:
Crystal M. Johnson, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA SCHOOL OF
LAW,
Appellate
Litigation
Clinic,
Athens,
Georgia,
for
Appellant. James C. Rubinger, PLAVE KOCH PLC, Reston, Virginia,
for Appellees.
ON BRIEF:
Peter B. Rutledge, Paula Briceno,
Brittany Cambre, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Appellate
Litigation Clinic, Athens, Georgia, for Appellant.
Benjamin B.
Reed, PLAVE KOCH PLC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2327

Doc: 72

Filed: 06/24/2014

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
The background of this case is discussed in more detail in
our prior order.

See Dunlap v. Cottman Transmission Sys., LLC,

539 Fed. Appx. 69 (4th Cir. 2013).

James Dunlap, the plaintiff-

appellant, has operated two AAMCO Transmissions, Inc. franchises
in Virginia for over 30 years.

Cottman Transmission Systems,

LLC, the first defendant-appellee, is an AAMCO competitor.
Leff,

the

second

defendant-appellee,

became

the

Todd

president

of

AAMCO when it was acquired by an asset-management company that
also held a large interest in Cottman.
Cottman

and

including

Leff,

Joseph

along

with

Truskowski

some

and

of

Dunlap alleges that
his

Robert

local

Biller,

competitors,
conspired

to

force him out of business.

He maintains that their actions

resulted

in

irreparable

to

deprived

of

marketing

franchise

agreement.

harm

benefits

his

business

that

Accordingly,

because

typically

Dunlap’s

it

flow

from

complaint

was
a

names

Cottman and Leff as defendants in a suit for: (1) violation of
Virginia’s
18.2-500,

business
(2)

conspiracy

tortious

statute,

interference

Va.

with

Code

§§ 18.2-499,

contract,

and

(3)

tortious interference with business expectancy.
The district court dismissed Dunlap’s suit.

With respect

to the statutory business conspiracy claim, it concluded that
Dunlap

had

predicate

failed
for

the

to

allege

a

conspiracy
2

valid

“unlawful

because

act”

neither

as

a

tortious

Appeal: 11-2327

Doc: 72

interference

Filed: 06/24/2014

with

contract

Pg: 3 of 6

nor

tortious

interference

business expectancy qualifies as such an act.

with

And with respect

to the common law tortious interference claims, the district
court determined that they were untimely because Virginia’s twoyear statute of limitations for suits for personal injury, Va.
Code

§ 8.01-243(A),

governs

them,

not

Virginia’s

five-year

statute of limitations for suits for injury to property rights,
Va. Code § 8.01-243(B).
Recognizing that Dunlap’s challenge to the district court’s
decision turns on the correct interpretation of Virginia law, we
certified to the Supreme Court of Virginia, pursuant to its Rule
5:40, the following questions:
1.

May a plaintiff use tortious interference with contract or
tortious

interference

predicate

unlawful

with

act

for

business
a

claim

expectancy
under

the

as

the

Virginia

business conspiracy statute, Va. Code §§ 18.2-499, 18.2500?
2.

Does a two-year or five-year statute of limitations apply
to

claims

of

tortious

interference

with

contract

and

tortious interference with business expectancy under Va.
Code § 8.01-243?
Dunlap, 539 Fed. Appx. at 70.
The Supreme Court of Virginia accepted our certification
request and

answered

both

questions.
3

See

Dunlap

v.

Cottman

Appeal: 11-2327

Doc: 72

Filed: 06/24/2014

Pg: 4 of 6

Transmission Sys., LLC, 287 Va. 207 (2014).
first

question,

interference

it

with

“examine[d]
contract

the

and

With respect to the

nature”

tortious

of

the

tortious

interference

with

business expectancy causes of action and determined that they
“are

intentional

torts

predicated

on

the

common

law

duty

to

refrain from interfering with another’s contractual and business
relationships.”

Id. at 216, 218.

Because “[t]hat duty does not

arise from the contract itself but is, instead, a common law
corollary of the contract,” the Court held that both causes of
action “qualify as the requisite unlawful act to proceed on a
business conspiracy claim under [Va.] Code §§ 18.2-499 and 500.”

Id. at 211, 218.

With respect to the second question, the Supreme Court of
Virginia

determined

that

tortious

interference

“[t]he

with

dispositive

contract

and

issue

tortious

is

interference

with business expectancy allege injury to property.”
219.

whether

Id. at

Pointing to the requirement in both causes of action of

“intentional

interference

termination

of

the

expectancy,”

the

Court

inducing

or

causing

contractual

relationship

reasoned

“[s]uch

that

a

breach

or

or

business

interference

is

directed at and injures a property right, i.e., the right to
performance of a contract and to reap profits and benefits not
only from the contract but also from expected future contracts
or otherwise advantageous business relationships.”
4

Id. at 221.

Appeal: 11-2327

Doc: 72

Filed: 06/24/2014

Pg: 5 of 6

Accordingly, it held that “the five-year statute of limitations
in

[Va.]

Code

interference

with

§ 8.01-243(B)
contract

business expectancy.”

applies

and

to

tortious

both

tortious

interference

with

Id. at 222.

In light of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s answers to the
certified questions, it is now clear that the district court’s
dismissal of Dunlap’s statutory business conspiracy and common
law tortious interference claims on the grounds stated in its
opinion is incorrect.
Cottman and Leff, however, advance an additional ground for
affirming

the

district

court’s

dismissal

of

one

claims -- the statutory business conspiracy claim.

of

Dunlap’s

They contend

that Dunlap cannot prevail on that claim because he alleges a
conspiracy between AAMCO, Cottman, and Leff, all of whom are
legally

incapable

intracorporate
district

of

conspiring

immunity

court’s

with

doctrine.

dismissal

of

a

each

Since
claim

“on

other
we
the

under

may

affirm

basis

of

the
a
any

ground supported by the record even if it is not the basis
relied upon by the district court,” Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177
F.3d 245, 253 (4th Cir. 1999), we consider Cottman and Leff’s
contention here.
The

intracorporate

immunity

doctrine

originates

in

antitrust law and holds that a corporation cannot, with certain
exceptions,

conspire

with

its
5

officers,

wholly-owned

Appeal: 11-2327

Doc: 72

subsidiaries,

Filed: 06/24/2014

and

Pg: 6 of 6

commonly-owned

affiliates.

See

Copperweld

Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 769, 771 (1984);
Advanced Health-Care Servs., Inc. v. Radford Cmty. Hosp., 910
F.2d 139, 146 (4th Cir. 1990).

We need not decide whether the

doctrine applies to claims under Virginia’s business conspiracy
statute because Dunlap does not limit his conspiracy allegation
to AAMCO, Cottman, and Leff.
Cottman

and

Leff

“along

Rather, his complaint alleges that

with

AAMCO,

Truskowski

and

Biller

conspired with each other to injure Dunlap in his businesses.”
J.A.

20.

That

allegation

brings

the

claim

outside

the

intracorporate immunity doctrine because Truskowski and Biller,
Dunlap’s local competitors, lack the requisite relationship to
AAMCO, Cottman, and Leff.
We

therefore

vacate

the

district

court’s

judgment

dismissing Dunlap’s suit and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED

6