David Schwartz v. Rent A Wreck of America Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cv-01679-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999542796].. [13-2189]

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 16

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2189

DAVID SCHWARTZ, d/b/a Rent A Wreck; RENT A WRECK INC., d/b/a
Bundy Auto Sales,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
v.
RENT A WRECK OF AMERICA, INC.; BUNDY AMERICAN, LLC,
Defendants – Appellants,
and
J.J.F MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (1:07-cv-01679-PJM)

Argued:

January 27, 2015

Decided:

March 10, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion.
Judge Duncan wrote
opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge King joined.

the

ARGUED: Daniel Janssen, QUARLES & BRADY LLP, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, for Appellants.
Roger Charles Simmons, GORDON &
SIMMONS, LLC, Frederick, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: E.
King Poor, QUARLES & BRADY LLP, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 16

Appellants. Jacob I. Weddle, GORDON & SIMMONS, LLC, Frederick,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 3 of 16

DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:
This case comes before us a second time.

On remand from

our first opinion, a jury found that the parties’ implied-infact franchise agreement does not violate California competition
law.

Defendants-Appellants Rent-A-Wreck of America, Inc., and

Bundy American, LLC (collectively, “RAWA”) argue on appeal that
this

verdict

should

not

stand

because

the

district

court

misallocated the burden of proof and improperly prevented them
from presenting to the jury their theory of the case.

Finding

no error, we affirm.

I.
This appeal presents a dispute between the creators of the
“Rent-A-Wreck” car rental brand, Plaintiffs-Appellees David S.
Schwartz and Rent-A-Wreck, Inc. (collectively, “Schwartz”), and
RAWA, the current owner of that brand.

In the 1970s and 80s,

Schwartz began using the Rent-A-Wreck name and assigned most of
his interest in that name to RAWA. 1

Importantly for this appeal,

Schwartz reserved the exclusive right to sell or operate Rent-AWreck franchises
operate

a

car

in

West

rental

Los

Angeles,

business

under

1

where

the

name

he

continued

“Bundy

to

Rent–A–

For a detailed description of the origin and evolution of
the parties’ relationships, see our previous opinion, Schwartz
v. Rent A Wreck Am. Inc., 468 F. App’x 238 (4th Cir. 2012).
3

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Wreck.”

Filed: 03/10/2015

RAWA’s

efforts

Pg: 4 of 16

to

have

this

exclusive-territory

agreement declared invalid are the subject of this appeal.
A.
In
United

June

2007,

States

Schwartz

District

filed

Court

for

suit
the

against
District

RAWA
of

in

the

Maryland.

Schwartz sought, in relevant part, a declaratory judgment that
he

enjoys

franchise

the
in

the

counterclaim
§ 16600,

exclusive
Los

under

right

Angeles

California

seeking

a

to

operate

territory.

Business

declaration

Rent-A-Wreck

RAWA

and

that

a

filed

Professions

Schwartz’s

a

Code

purported

franchise rights are unenforceable under California law because
those rights preclude RAWA from competing in that territory.
See

generally

provided

in

restrained

Cal.

this
from

Bus.

chapter,
engaging

&

Prof.
every

in

a

Code

§

contract
lawful

16600
by

(“Except

as

which

anyone

is

profession,

trade,

or

business of any kind is to that extent void.”).
A jury heard the parties’ claims in April 2010.

It found

that Schwartz has a “contract . . . with [RAWA] with respect to
[Schwartz’s] operation of a used car rental business in West Los
Angeles,” Schwartz v. Rent A Wreck Am. Inc., 468 F. App’x 238,
243–44 (4th Cir. 2012), and that the contract affords Schwartz
an

“[e]xclusive

[Rent-A-Wreck]

franchise

Angeles,” id. at 244.

4

.

.

.

in

West

Los

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

After
Federal

Filed: 03/10/2015

the

Rule

thereof.

jury
of

RAWA

announced

Civil
argued

Pg: 5 of 16

its

verdict,

Procedure
that

the

50

to

court

RAWA

moved

under

set

aside

portions

“must

grant

judgment

notwithstanding the verdict on the jury’s finding that [Schwartz
has]

an

exclusive

franchise

contract

because

California

law

provides that noncompetition agreements of this nature are void
ab initio.”

Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Notwithstanding Verdict

3, Schwartz v. J.J.F. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 1:07-cv-01679-PJM
(D. Md. May 18, 2010), ECF No. 308-1.
The district court denied RAWA’s motion.

It held that the

agreement is valid because RAWA and Schwartz have a “franchise
agreement,” and “franchise agreements . . . are not void under
California law as . . . non-competitive.”

Tr. Mot. Proceedings

59, Schwartz, No. 1:07-cv-01679-PJM (D. Md. July 21, 2010), ECF
No. 353.

Schwartz appealed.
B.

On appeal, we held that the exclusive-territory provision
does not violate California law if “(1) the implied contract
found by the jury is a franchising agreement, whereby RAWA can
maintain some control as is necessary to protect its trademark,
trade name, and goodwill; and (2) the exclusivity arrangement
does not foreclose competition in a substantial share of the
affected line of commerce.”

Schwartz, 468 F. App’x at 251.

We

also “conclude[d] that the question of whether the exclusive
5

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 6 of 16

territory at issue would foreclose competition in a substantial
share of the market for rental cars is a question of fact for
the jury.”
jury

.

.

Id.
.

Because “[t]his issue was not presented to the

,

we

vacate[d]

the

district

court’s

denial

of

[RAWA’s] Rule 50(b) motion” and “instruct[ed] the district court
to

submit

to

territory

a

jury

provision

the

question

forecloses

of

whether

competition

share of the market for rental cars.”

in

the
a

exclusive

substantial

Id.

C.
On

remand,

the

district

court

submitted

to

a

jury

both

questions we identified: (1) whether RAWA maintains sufficient
control over Schwartz to protect its trademark, trade name, and
goodwill;

and

(2)

whether

the

exclusive-territory

forecloses competition for rental cars.

provision

Prior to trial, the

court held that RAWA would bear the burden of proof on both
issues.
affected

The court also rejected RAWA’s attempts to redefine the
line

of

commerce

as

the

market

for

Rent-A-Wreck

franchises because, among other reasons, our previous opinion
had referred to the market for rental cars.

The court explained

that RAWA could define “an appropriate market for rental cars in
whatever way [it] so choose[s]”--for example, by defining it as
the

market

for

the

type

of

rental

cars

that

Rent-A-Wreck

franchises rent--but RAWA could not define the market in terms
of

Rent-A-Wreck

franchises

themselves.
6

J.A.

823.

In

other

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 7 of 16

words, the district court limited RAWA to a market in which the
consumers are those who rent cars from establishments like RentA-Wreck,

rather

than

those

who

seek

to

operate

Rent-A-Wreck

franchises.
A three-day jury trial began on June 18, 2013.

On the

first day, RAWA reiterated its view that the affected line of
commerce is “the sell [sic] of Rent-A-Wreck franchises,” not, as
the court had ruled, “the rental of cars.”
explained

that,

in

light

of

the

court’s

J.A. 932.
rejection

RAWA

of

its

preferred market definition, it would not present any evidence
that the exclusive-territory agreement forecloses competition.
See J.A. 933; see also J.A. 1393–94.

RAWA argued instead that

the parties’ contract is not a franchise agreement because RAWA
lacks control over Schwartz, and that the exclusive-territory
provision

is

therefore

invalid.

The

jury

rejected

this

argument; it found that RAWA “has the right to exercise some
control

over

[Schwartz]

as

is

necessary

trademark, trade name, and good will.”
found

that

Schwartz’s

to

J.A. 902.

exclusive-territory

protect

RAWA’s

The jury also

agreement

does

not

foreclose competition in a substantial share of the market for
rental cars.
court

entered

J.A. 902.
judgment

In accordance with this verdict, the
in

favor

counterclaim and closed the case.

7

of

Schwartz

RAWA appealed.

on

RAWA’s

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 8 of 16

II.
This

appeal

presents

two

issues:

first,

whether

the

district court erred by assigning RAWA the burden of proving
that the exclusive-territory agreement forecloses competition;
and second, whether the district court erred by preventing RAWA
from

presenting

relevant market. 2

to

the

jury

its

preferred

definition

of

the

borne

the

We address each issue in turn.
A.

RAWA

first

argues

that

Schwartz

should

have

burden of proving that the exclusive-territory agreement does
not foreclose competition.

Schwartz responds that RAWA properly

bore the burden of proof because it was the party claiming that
the agreement violated California competition law.

We agree

with Schwartz.
2

RAWA also argues on appeal that the district court erred
by determining precisely how much control RAWA can exercise over
Schwartz.
See Appellants’ Br. at 15–30.
This argument is not
properly before us because the district court entered no
judgment concerning RAWA’s specific franchise rights.
The jury
found that RAWA could exercise some control over Schwartz, but
neither the jury nor the district defined the contours of that
control.
Because the district court entered no judgment
concerning RAWA’s specific franchise rights, we may not decide
whether any such ruling would have been in error.
See Everett
v. Pitt Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 678 F.3d 281, 291 (4th Cir. 2012)
(“[W]e review judgments, not opinions . . . .”
(alteration in
original) (quoting Crosby v. City of Gastonia, 635 F.3d 634, 643
(4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
If the
parties continue to disagree over how much control RAWA can
exercise
over
Schwartz,
they
are
free
to
resolve
that
disagreement through, for example, private negotiations or a
state-law breach-of-contract action.
8

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 9 of 16

1.
We review de novo the district court’s allocation of the
burden of proof.

See Everett v. Pitt Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 678

F.3d 281, 288 (4th Cir. 2012).

A federal court sitting in

diversity, we apply state substantive law and federal procedural
law.

See, e.g., Anand v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 754 F.3d

195, 198 (4th Cir. 2014).

Because “the assignment of the burden

of proof is a rule of substantive law,” Dir., Office of Workers’
Comp. Programs, Dep’t of Labor v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S.
267, 271 (1994), “our role is to apply the governing state law,
or, if necessary, predict how the state’s highest court would
rule on an unsettled issue.”

Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Gen. Star

Nat’l Ins. Co., 514 F.3d 327, 329 (4th Cir. 2008).
2.
RAWA brought its counterclaim under California Business and
Professions Code § 16600, which reads: “Except as provided in
this chapter,[ 3] every contract by which anyone is restrained
from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any
kind is to that extent void.”
that

§

16600

permits

an

We held in our previous opinion

exclusive-territory

3

provision

in

a

“The chapter excepts noncompetition agreements in the sale
or dissolution of corporations (§ 16601), partnerships (ibid.;
§ 16602), and limited liability corporations (§ 16602.5).”
Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285, 290-91 (Cal.
2008).
9

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 10 of 16

franchise agreement if, in relevant part, the provision “does
not foreclose competition in a substantial share of the market.”
Schwartz, 468 F. App’x at 250–51; see also Comedy Club, Inc. v.
Improv W. Assocs., 553 F.3d 1277, 1292 (9th Cir. 2009).

Now, we

must decide which party bears the burden of establishing whether
an

exclusive-territory

provision

forecloses

competition. 4

Neither the California State Legislature nor the Supreme Court
of California has addressed this precise question.

Our task is

therefore

Court

answer it.

to

predict

how

the

California

Supreme

would

We predict that it would hold as the district court

did: The party claiming that an exclusive-territory provision is
void

under

§ 16600

bears

the

burden

of

showing

that

§ 16600

prohibits that provision.

4

RAWA maintains that we have already decided this issue
because our previous opinion “appears to place the burden on
Schwartz.” Appellants’ Br. at 33. RAWA misreads the following
passage from our opinion:
[W]e conclude that [Schwartz is] entitled to the
exclusive territory provision if two circumstances can
be met: (1) the implied contract found by the jury is
a franchising agreement, whereby RAWA can maintain
some control as is necessary to protect its trademark,
trade name[,] and goodwill; and (2) the exclusivity
arrangement does not foreclose competition in a
substantial share of the affected line of commerce.
Id. at 33–34 (first alteration in original) (quoting Schwartz,
468 F. App’x at 251).
This quotation does not establish which
party bears the burden of proof.
Instead, our use of passive
voice--“can be met”--allowed the district court to decide in the
first instance which party should bear that burden.
10

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 11 of 16

California law generally places the burden of proof on the
party

who

codified

seeks

at

relief

California

from

the

Evidence

court.
Code

§

This
500,

principle

which

is

provides:

“Except as otherwise provided by law, a party has the burden of
proof as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which is
essential

to

asserting.”
rule

for

the

claim

for

relief

or

defense

that

he

is

No statute or court decision alters this general
§ 16600

claims.

In

fact,

the

Supreme

Court

of

California has recognized that a party bringing a claim under
§ 16600 generally must “allege facts sufficient to constitute a
cause

of

16600.”

action

for

unfair

competition

under

. . .

section

Blank v. Kirwan, 703 P.2d 58, 69 (Cal. 1985); cf.

Dayton Time Lock Serv., Inc. v. Silent Watchman Corp., 124 Cal.
Rptr. 678, 682 (Ct. App. 1975) (noting plaintiff’s failure to
“develop material evidence” to support its claim under § 16600
that “performance

of

the

[exclusive-dealing]

contract

[would]

foreclose competition in a substantial share of the affected
line of commerce”).
There is no reason to believe that the Supreme Court of
California would carve out an exception to this general rule for
a

claim

that

an

exclusive-franchise

11

agreement

is

void

under

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

§ 16600. 5

Pg: 12 of 16

California courts consider the following factors when

“determining
proof

Filed: 03/10/2015

whether

should

concerning

be

the

availability

of

the

normal

altered”:

(1)

particular
the

evidence

allocation
“the

fact”
to

of

knowledge
to

the

be

the
of

the

proved;

parties”;

burden

(3)

of

parties

(2)

“the

“the

most

desirable result in terms of public policy in the absence of
proof of the particular fact”; and (4) “the probability of the
existence or nonexistence of the fact.”

Amaral v. Cintas Corp.

No. 2, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572, 596 (Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Lakin
v. Watkins Associated Indus., 863 P.2d 179, 189 (Cal. 1993))
(internal
courts

quotation

have

shifted

mark

omitted).

“the

normal

5

Applying

allocation

of

these
the

factors,
burden

of

RAWA argues that the Northern District of California’s
opinion in Scott v. Snelling & Snelling, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 1034
(N.D. Cal. 1990), “required” the district court here to place
the burden of proof on Schwartz.
Appellants’ Br. at 31.
But
Scott--which is of course not binding on the district or this
court--does not support RAWA’s position.
In that case, a
franchisor brought breach-of-contract and unfair-competition
claims against some of its former franchisees.
Id. at 1036.
The franchisor alleged that the former franchisees had violated
a restrictive covenant they had signed by using the franchisor’s
trade secrets to compete unfairly with current franchisees. Id.
at 1036, 1043. The court began its analysis by recognizing that
post-employment covenants not to compete are unenforceable under
California law unless a “former employee uses a former
employer’s
trade
secrets
or
otherwise
commits
unfair
competition,” in which case “a judicially created exception to
section 16600” applies. Id. at 1043. The court then placed the
burden of proving the existence of a trade secret on the
franchisor.
Id. at 1038.
This holding is consistent with our
holding today: like the Scott court, we place the burden of
proof on the party bringing the claim.
12

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 13 of 16

proof . . . in spoliation of evidence cases, negligence per se
actions, and product liability cases based on design defect.”
Nat’l Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharm.,
Inc., 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 207, 214–15 (Ct. App. 2003) (footnote
and citations omitted).
proof

shifts

probability

to
the

the

For these types of cases, the burden of

defendant

defendant

has

where

“there

engaged

in

is

a

substantial

wrongdoing

and

the

defendant’s wrongdoing makes it practically impossible for the
plaintiff to prove the wrongdoing.”

Cassady v. Morgan, Lewis &

Bockius LLP, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527, 537 (Ct. App. 2006) (quoting
Nat’l Council Against Health Fraud, 133 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 214)
(internal quotation mark omitted).
Here,

none

conclusion

of

that

the

four

RAWA’s

factors

§ 16600

weighs

in

counterclaim

favor
is

of

a

the

“rare

instance[]” in which “the burden of proof set forth in Evidence
Code section 500 [should be] altered.”
first

and

second

knowledge

of

factors,

whether

Schwartz

the

Id.

With respect to the

would

not

have

exclusive-territory

superior
provision

forecloses competition or greater access to evidence of such
foreclosure.

Nor,

under

considerations

suggest

the

that

third

factor,

do

exclusive-territory

public

policy

provisions

in

franchise agreements should be unenforceable in the absence of
proof that they foreclose competition.
dealing

arrangements

can

be

Indeed, such exclusive

pro-competitive,
13

as

when

they

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 14 of 16

“provide an incentive for the marketing of new products and a
guarantee of quality-control distribution.”
Serv., 124 Cal. Rptr. at 682.
fourth

factor,

franchise

we

have

agreements

no

so

Dayton Time Lock

Finally, with respect to the

reason

to

frequently

believe

foreclose

that

exclusive-

competition

that

courts should presume that they have anticompetitive effects.
We therefore conclude that the baseline rule applies: RAWA bears
the burden of proving its § 16600 claim.

Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s allocation of that burden.
B.
RAWA

next

argues

that

the

district

court

erred

by

preventing RAWA from presenting its preferred market definition
to the jury.

Though RAWA repeatedly attempted before and at

trial to define the affected line of commerce as the market for
Rent-A-Wreck franchises, it now claims that it tried to define
that line as the market for “older [rental] vehicles, generally
from two to eight years old.”
Reply Br. at 10.
“encouraged”
territory

Appellants’ Br. at 36; accord

Schwartz responds that the district court

RAWA

to

agreement

proffer

evidence

forecloses

market, but RAWA refused.

that

competition

the

in

a

exclusiverental

Appellees’ Br. at 56–57.

car

For two

reasons, we find no error.
First,
defining

the

the

district

relevant

court

market

as
14

did

not

prevent

one

for

older

RAWA

rental

from
cars.

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Contrary
market

to

Filed: 03/10/2015

what

it

definition

dispute

is

the

now

for
sale

Pg: 15 of 16

argues,

trial:
of

RAWA

“The

proposed

line

Rent-A-Wreck

of

the

following

commerce

brand

in

this

franchises,

for

renting and leasing used motor vehicles that are less than eight
years old.”

J.A. 790 (emphasis added); accord J.A. 819, 932.

The district court rejected that definition, but made clear that
RAWA could delineate “an appropriate market for rental cars in
whatever way [it] so choose[s], defining that market as rental
cars, rental cars older than 8 years old, etc.”

J.A. 823.

then chose not to define any rental car market.

See, e.g., J.A.

819.

RAWA

Having made this choice, RAWA cannot now claim that the

district court prevented it from advocating a market for older
rental vehicles.
Second, the district court rightly rejected RAWA’s attempts
to define the market as one for Rent-A-Wreck franchises.

In our

previous opinion, we “instruct[ed] the district court to submit
to

a

jury

the

question

of

whether

the

exclusive

territory

provision forecloses competition in a substantial share of the
market

for

(emphasis
RAWA’s

rental

added).

preferred

cars.”
Because

market

Schwartz,

468

F.

franchises

are

not

definition

mandate and therefore impermissible.
err by enforcing our mandate.

was

App’x

at

rental

inconsistent

251
cars,

with

our

The district court did not

See Scott v. Mason Coal Co., 289

F.3d 263, 267 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen we remand a case, the
15

Appeal: 13-2189

Doc: 44

Filed: 03/10/2015

Pg: 16 of 16

lower court must ‘implement both the letter and spirit of the .
. . mandate.’” (second alteration in original) (quoting United
States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993)).

III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is
AFFIRMED.

16