Marous Brothers Construction, LLC et al v. Alabama State University et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that: (1) Dft's 98 and 103 Motions for Summary Judgment be and the same are hereby GRANTED; (2) Dfts' 98 Motion for Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Alabama Litigation Accountab ility Act be and the same is hereby DENIED; (3) Dfts' 100 Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby DENIED; (4) Dfts' 132 and 135 Motions to Strike be and the same are hereby DENIED AS MOOT; (5) All of Plfs' claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Ira De Ment on 11/24/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR T H E MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION M A R O U S BROTHERS C O N S T R U C T IO N , LLC, et al., P l a i n t if f s , v. A L A B A M A STATE UNIVERSITY, e t al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 2:07-cv-384-ID (W O )
M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER P la in tif f s Marous Brothers Construction ("MBC") and Gil Berry bring this action a g a in s t Alabama State University ("ASU"), W. Ken Upchurch, Percy Thomas, TCU C o n su ltin g Services ("TCU"), Joe A. Lee, and Elton N. Dean, Sr., alleging that Defendants b re a c h e d an implied contract and committed various torts in connection with a project to re n o v a te ASU dormitories. Defendants TCU, Upchurch, and Thomas have also filed a c o u n t e rc la im against Berry for defamation. This cause is before the Court on Defendants' M o tio n s for Summary Judgment (Docs. ## 98, 100, 103) and Defendants' Motions to Strike (D o c s. ## 132, 135). The Court has carefully considered all submissions in support of and in opposition to the motions and the relevant case law. The Court addresses each claim b e lo w . I . JURISDICTION AND VENUE T h e Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28
U .S .C . § 1332 (diversity). The parties contest neither personal jurisdiction nor venue, and th e Court finds an adequate factual basis for each. I I . SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD U n d e r Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is a p p ro p ria te "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, to g e th e r with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact an d that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). " A n issue of fact is `genuine' if the record as a whole could lead a reasonable trier of fact to f in d for the nonmoving party. An issue is `material' if it might affect the outcome of the c a se under the governing law." Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments, 94 F.3d 1 4 8 9 , 1496 (11th Cir. 1996) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1 9 8 6 )). "A genuine issue of material fact does not exist unless there is sufficient evidence f a v o rin g the nonmoving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in its favor." Chapman v . AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Haves v. City of M ia m i, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). T h e party seeking summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of in f o rm in g the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of `the p le a d in g s , depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the a f f id a v its , if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material f a ct." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant can meet this burden
b y presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing the n o n m o v in g party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on w h ic h it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-23. O n c e the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(e) "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the `depositions, answers to in t e rr o g a to r ie s , and admissions on file,' designate `specific facts showing that there is a g e n u in e issue for trial.'" Id. at 324. To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party " m u s t do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material f a cts ." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). On the o th e r hand, a court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must believe the evidence of th e nonmovant and must draw all justifiable inferences from the evidence in the nonmoving p a rty's favor. See, e.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); M c C o r m ic k v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003) (the evidence a n d all reasonable inferences from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant). After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion for summary ju d g m e n t, the court must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material f a c t and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 6 (c). I I I . FACTS T h e Court has carefully considered all deposition excerpts and documents submitted
in support of and in opposition to the motion. The submissions of the parties, viewed in the lig h t most favorable to the non-moving party, establish the following relevant facts: P la in tif f Gil Berry is the owner of Gil Berry and Associates ("GBA"), a consulting f irm based in Pennsylvania. P la in tif f Marous Brothers Construction, Inc. ("MBC") is an Ohio-based company that s p e c ia liz e s in historic renovations, the construction of multi-family residences, and h o s p ita lity-re la te d projects. Arne Goldman is the Director of Business for MBC. S tu d e n t Suites is a Missouri-based company that develops and finances new student h o u s in g for universities. Dick Davis is the Director of Development, Acquisition and F in a n c e for Student Suites. T C U Consulting Services, Inc. ("TCU") serves as the "owner's representative" for c o n s t ru c tio n projects at ASU, including the University's dormitory renovations. U p c h u rc h and Percy Thomas are principles of TCU. E lto n N. Dean is the Chairman of the ASU Board of Trustees. He has served in this c a p a c ity since 2005. Joe A. Lee is the President of ASU. He has served in this capacity s in c e 2001. B e rry became aware that ASU had a potential student housing project in the summer o f 2005. Berry contacted MBC and Student Suites regarding the project, and the three c o m p a n ie s decided to work together to present a proposal to ASU to renovate six dormitories an d construct a new student housing facility ("the ASU dormitory renovation project"). Ken
In July, 2005, Berry met with the ASU officials responsible for improving student h o u sin g . Subsequent to this meeting, ASU authorized GBA, Student Suites, and MBC to to u r its dormitories in order to prepare the proposal. O n September 20, 2005, GBA, MBC, and Student Suites presented their proposal to A S U for the dormitory renovation project. The proposal was presented to Dr. Leon Frazier, f o rm e r Vice President of Administrative Services at ASU, and several other ASU officials re s p o n s ib le for improving student housing at ASU. O n November 9, 2005, Berry and Davis sent a letter to the ASU Trustee Board. The le tte r enclosed a revised plan regarding the proposal to redevelop the student housing at A S U . It also requested that the Board pass a resolution drafted by Student Suites, GBA, and M B C "to allow our team to work with the Alabama State University Staff to further define th e exact scope of work along with the most attractive financing packages available." This d ra f t resolution, which was attached to a letter signed by Berry, stated: B E IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees designates Student Suites, Inc. a n d Gil Berry and Associates as its developer for the purpose of Designing, B u i ld in g Renovating, and Financing a proposed Student Housing R e d e v elo p m e n t Master Plan per the proposal submitted October 28, 2005. I t is mutually understood that if final agreement is not reached on more d e ta iled design and financing structures that this Resolution will become void w ith no expense to Alabama State University. (e m p h a s is added). According to Davis, both Berry and MBC knew of and consented to the d ra f t resolution being sent to ASU. O n November 15, 2005, the ASU Board of Trustees Property Committee approved 5
in principle for presentation to the full Board a proposed resolution that stated: th e Board of Trustees hereby authorizes the President of the University to e n g a g e Student Suites, Inc., and Gil Berry and Associates as developer for the p u rp o s e of developing a Student Housing Redevelopment master Plan for d e s ig n in g , building, renovating, and financing student housing on campus. It is mutually understood that if final agreement is not reached on more detailed d e sig n and financing structures that this Resolution will become void with no e x p en s e to Alabama State University. (e m p h a s is added). Both Berry and MBC received notice of this resolution. O n November 18, 2005, Goldman prepared a Letter of Intent to define the relationship b e tw e e n Student Suites, GBA, and MBC. The Letter of Intent designated Student Suites and G B A as "the developer" and MBC as "the Design/Builder." The Letter of Intent provided: 5) D u rin g various stages of the pre-construction phase of the Project, the D e sig n /B u ild e r shall present to the Developer a guaranteed maximum p ric e (GMP) for the hard construction cost for the Project. . . . The D e sig n /B u ild e r shall issue the GMP to coincide with the completion of th e ir schematic design work. If the Developer or Alabama State U n iv e rs ity elect to abandon the Project at that time for any reason, then th e Developer and/or Alabama State University will be responsible for p a yin g the Design/Builder only for pre-construction services rendered b y the Design/Builder up to the time that the GMP has been issued. . . If , after receiving the GMP, the Developer elects to proceed with the P r o je c t, the Design/Builder shall continue to provide pre-construction s e rv ic e s through the design development phase. . . . At the conclusion o f the design development phase, the Design/Builder shall issue a re v ise d GMP to the Developer . . . . If the Developer or Alabama State U n iv e rs ity elect to abandon the Project at this time for any reason, then th e Developer and/or Alabama State University shall promptly remit $ 1 1 5 ,8 0 0 .0 0 plus travel expenses as payment-in-full for prec o n s tru c tio n services . . . .
If the Developer or Alabama State University elect to abandon the P r o je c t after the lump sum, fixed-fee contract amount has been d e te rm in e d by the Design/Builder and prior to construction for any re a so n , or if the Developer elects to select another entity for the c o n stru c tio n of the Project, then the Developer shall promptly remit p a ym e n t of $248,000.00 plus travel expenses to the Design/Builder for p re -c o n stru c tio n services rendered as payment-in-full.
T h e Letter of Intent contained signature lines for Student Suites, GBA, and MBC. ASU was n o t an intended party to the Letter of Intent. Furthermore, the Letter of Intent was never s ig n e d by any party. D u rin g the winter and srping of 2006, MBC prepared a product that outlined the S c o p e of Work for the ASU dormitory renovation project. MBC gave copies of the Scope o f Work to Berry to distribute. A t a meeting on May 5, 2006, the ASU Board of Trustees agreed "to engage Student S u ites as the contractor to renovate six University residence Halls, and build one new suite style residence hall at Alabama State University." Sometime later, ASU decided not to build th e new residence hall and to only renovate the six dormitories. O n May 15, 2006, MBC sent an invoice to Student Suites and GBA in the amount of $ 2 9 7 ,5 0 0 .0 0 for "Part 1 Design Build & Preconstruction Services Rendered to Date" on the A S U dormitory renovation project. On May 23, 2006, GBA sent an invoice to ASU in the a m o u n t of $76,729.49 for "Part 1 Supervision of Design/Build Preconstruction Services." N e ith e r of these invoices were paid. A ls o in May 2005, Davis incorporated the entity "Student Suites Gil Berry Associates,
L L C " ("SSGBA") in the State of Alabama. On July 9, 2006, Davis emailed a draft " D e v e lo p m e n t Agreement" ("the Agreement"), which was the proposed contract between S S G B A and ASU for the dormitory renovation project. While MBC was identified in the d ra f t agreement, MBC was not a party to the agreement. The Development Agreement was re v is e d several times, but it was never signed. O n July 26, 2006, ASU notified Berry that it had engaged TCU to assist ASU by p e rf o rm in g due diligence in reviewing the Plaintiffs' proposal. ASU requested permission f o r TCU to review the Scope of Work prepared by MBC. Berry authorized TCU to review th e Scope of Work. On July 28, 2006, MBC sent an email to Berry stating the conditions u p o n the use of MBC's proprietary Scope of Work. The email stated: a ) . . . We have prepared our work product in good faith based upon our verbal a g re e m e n t with you and Richard Davis, knowing that as of this date, we have r e c e iv e d no compensation for our efforts. b ) We understand that you are close to signing your Development Agreement w ith Alabama State University, at which time we will execute our construction M a n a g e m e n t contract and receive compensation for the extensive prec o n s t ru c tio n services we have rendered on behalf of ASU and your d e v e lo p m e n t team; however, until that time, no one is authorized to use our w o rk product without our permission. (em p h asis added). O n July 28, 2006, TCU was retained by ASU to serve as the owner's representative. T C U reviewed the proposed development agreement and Scope of Work and communicated its questions and concerns with MBC. On August 16, 2006, ASU emailed Berry and Davis p ro p o s e d revisions to the Agreement. On August 18, 2006, Davis wrote a letter to President 8
L e e that stated that SSGBA's position was that certain proposed changes were "not a c ce p ta b le ." The changes which SSGBA would not accept were requiring SSGBA to be re sp o n s ib le for the fees and expenses of consultants or project managers hired by ASU, and d e la yin g the initial payment of four percent until the commencement of construction. O n September 19, 2006, ASU emailed Berry that President Lee wanted the d e v e lo p e r's fee provided in the Agreement to be reduced by $1 Million. On September 20, 2 0 0 6 , Berry sent ASU a letter that the developer's fee could not be reduced more than $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 . O n September 22, 2006, the ASU Board of Trustees met. At that meeting, President L e e recommended that the Board reject the Agreement proposed by SSGBA for the d o r m i t o ry renovation project. The Board approved President Lee's recommendation and c h o se not to engage SSGBA for the project. O n September 28, 2006, President Lee sent Berry a letter explaining his decision not to recommend GBA and Student Suites' proposal for the dormitory renovation project. O n October 3, 2006, Berry forwarded invoices for GBA, MBC and Student Suites to A S U . GBA's invoice was in the amount of $196,585.68, Student Suites' invoice was in the a m o u n t of $95,975.00, and MBC's invoice was in the amount of $454,777.00. ASU did not p a y these invoices. On October 23, 2006, ASU collected all documents from GBA, Student S u ite s , and MBC that were in its possession and returned them to Berry. P la in tif f s filed this action on May 3, 2007.
I V . DISCUSSION W h e n a federal court decides a state law claim it applies the choice of law rules of the ju ris d ic tio n in which it sits. Benchmark Med. Holdings, Inc. v. Rehab Solutions, LLC, 307 F . Supp. 2d 1249, 1258-59 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (Albritton, C.J.) (citing Boardman Petroleum, In c . v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 135 F.3d 750, 752 (11th Cir. 1998). In this case, the Court w i l l apply the law of the State of Alabama. See Cherokee Ins. Co. v. Sanches, 975 So. 2d 2 8 7 , 293 (Ala. 2007) (Alabama choice of law rules in contract claims require court to apply th e law of the state where the contract was formed); Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 124 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1248 (M.D. Ala. 2000) (DeMent, J.) (Alabama choice o f law rules for tort claims require court to apply the law of the state where the harm o c c u rre d ). Moreover, all of the parties agree that Alabama law governs this case. A. M B C 's Claims M B C has voluntarily dismissed all of its claims except its quantum meruit claim. In o rd e r to succeed on a claim of quantum meruit, a plaintiff must show that (1) he provided a b e n e fit that was knowingly accepted, and (2) he had a reasonable expectation of being c o m p e n s a te d for those services. Mantiply v. Mantiply, 951 So. 2d 638, 656 (Ala. 2006). T h e Court finds that MBC did not have a reasonable expectation of being c o m p e n s a te d by ASU for the work it performed. In November 2005--well before MBC s ta rte d working to prepare the Scope of Work--the ASU Board of Trustees adopted a re s o lu tio n , which had been drafted and proposed to ASU by Student Suites and GBA, that
s ta te d "It is mutually understood that if final agreement is not reached on more detailed d e sig n and financing structures that this Resolution will become void with no expense to A la b a m a State University." (emphasis added). MBC does not dispute that it had notice of th is resolution and that no "final agreement" was ever reached. When presented with such a clear statement, a reasonable person would understand that any work performed attempting to obtain a contract, prior to reaching a "final agreement," would be performed at their own ris k if no final agreement was ever reached. Therefore, any expectation of compensation u n d e r these circumstances would be unreasonable. See Utah Foam Prods. v. Polytec, Inc., 5 8 4 So. 2d 1345, 1350-51 (Ala. 1991) (plaintiff contractors did not have reasonable ex p ec tation of compensation for work performed attempting to secure a contract). B. B er r y 's Claims1 1. C la im s Against ASU, Lee, and Dean Only a. B re a c h of Contract and Quantum Meruit Claims
B erry has not presented this Court with any evidence of an express contract, therefore h is breach of contract claim fails to that extent. Furthermore, Berry's breach of implied c o n tra c t and quantum meruit claims fail for the same reasons that MBC's fail. See supra Part I V .A . b. Fraud
The Court notes that Berry's briefs in opposition to summary judgment do not c ite any caselaw relevant to his claims. Moreover, Berry does not make any substantive a rg u m e n ts beyond repeating legal conclusions without any factual or legal support. 11
B e rry's Complaint includes a claim of fraud against Lee. However, Berry does not s p e c if y what statements or conduct on the part of Lee he believes were fraudulent. The a f f id a v it of Berry submitted in support of his opposition to summary judgment does not re f e re n c e any alleged fraudulent statements by Lee. Accordingly, Berry has not met his b u rd e n of proof, and Lee is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. 2. C la im s Against TCU, Upchurch, and Thomas a. F r a u d u l e n t Misrepresentation
T o recover for a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must prove (1) a false representation (2) of a material fact (3) that the plaintiff reasonably relied on, (4) w h ic h was the proximate cause of damage sustained by the plaintiff. See Davis v. Sterne, A g e e and Leach, Inc., 965 So. 2d 1076, 1094 (Ala. 2007). In Count Three of Plaintiffs' A m e n d e d Complaint (Doc. # 59), Plaintiffs state that the allegedly false representation made b y TCU, Upchurch, and Thomas is "that they believed that the Plaintiffs' proposal was the b e st and most fair proposal and that ASU should move forward with the Plaintiffs' proposal im m e d iate ly." Furthermore, in his deposition, Berry admits that this statement is the sole b a s is for the fraudulent misrepresentation claim. B e rry states in his deposition that he had only one meeting with TCU, that the sta tem e n t was made to Goldman and not him, and that he never heard the alleged statement. A c c o rd in g ly, Berry has not presented this Court with sufficient evidence that a reasonable ju ry could find the statement was actually made. Furthermore, the statements Berry alleges
w ere false were not statements of fact, but rather statements of opinion, which can not form th e basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. See Ray v. Montgomery, 399 So. 2d 230, 2 3 2 (Ala. 1980) (seller's claims that house was "a nice house" and "in good condition" were sta tem e n ts of opinion and not material fact); Lawson v. Cagle, 504 So. 2d 226, 227 (Ala. 1 9 8 7 ) (predictions as to events to occur in the future are generally regarded as statements of o p inion only). Moreover, Berry admitted in his deposition that these statements were s ta te m e n ts of opinion. When a plaintiff admits a statement is an opinion, he is unjustified a s a matter of law in relying on it as a material fact. See Jones v. McGuffin, 454 So. 2d 509, 5 1 2 (Ala. 1984). Lastly, Berry also admitted in his deposition that he did not rely on the alleg ed misrepresentations. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Defendants are e n title d to summary judgment on Berry's fraudulent misrepresentation claim. In Berry's affidavit, he suddenly alleges an additional basis for his fraudulent m is re p re s e n ta tio n claim: "The crux of SSGBA's fraudulent claims is that TCU m is re p re se n te d that it had been hired by ASU to review SSGBA's work, and thereby o b tain e d copies of SSGBA's proprietary work, which it subsequently used to obtain $ 4 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 in funding, and to bill ASU in the approximate amount of $3,000,000." H o w e v e r, Berry clearly limited his fraudulent misrepresentation claim to the alleged m is re p re se n ta tio n by TCU "that they believed that the Plaintiffs' proposal was the best and m o s t fair proposal and that ASU should move forward with the Plaintiffs' proposal im m e d ia te ly." Berry so limited his claim in the Amended Complaint and his deposition. A
p la in tif f may not amend his complaint at summary judgment.
See Gilmour v. Gates,
M c D o n a ld and Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, this Court will not a d d re s s this untimely claim. b. T o r tio u s Interference With Contract
In order to prove a claim of tortious interference with contract, the plaintiff must show (1 ) the existence of a contract or business relation; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the c o n tra c t or business relation; (3) intentional interference by the defendant with the contract o r business relation; (4) the absence of justification for the defendant's interference; and (5) d a m a g e to the plaintiff as a result of the interference. See Parsons v. Aaron, 849 So. 2d 932, 9 4 6 (Ala. 2002). A defendant is not liable for tortious interference with contract if that party is a " p a rtic ip a n t" to the contract or business relationship at issue. See Waddell & Reed, Inc. v. U n ite d Investors Life Ins. Co., 875 So. 2d 1143, 1157 (Ala. 2003). Such a justification is an a f f irm a tiv e defense, and the burden of proof is on the defendant. Parsons, 849 So. 2d at 946. T h e defendant does not have to be a party to the contract in order to be a "participant" and th u s shielded from liability. Waddell & Reed, 875 So. 2d at 1157. A "participant" is one w h o is involved in a business relationship arising from interwoven contractual arrangements th a t include the contract at issue. Id. If the participant has a legitimate economic interest in a n d a legitimate relationship to the contract, then the participant enjoys a privilege of b e c o m in g involved without being accused of interfering with the contract. Id.
B e rry has admitted, in the Amended Complaint and in his deposition, that TCU had a relationship with ASU as owner's representative on the dormitory restoration project. B e rry further admitted in his deposition that TCU had a right and obligation to review S S G B A 's proposal on behalf of ASU. This Court finds that TCU's relationship with ASU a s "owner's representative" on the dormitory restoration project makes them a "participant" in the business relationship between SSGBA and ASU. As such, they were not strangers to th e relationship and any alleged interference on their behalf would have been justified. T h e re f o re , Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Berry's tortious interference w ith contract claim. 3. C la im s Against All Defendants a. C o n v e r sio n
B erry does not present any facts or argument to support his conversion claim. In B e rry's affidavit, he claims that "SSGBA's proprietary work product" was wrongfully a p p ro p ria te d and used to acquire funding. However, Berry has not presented any evidence o r legal argument that ASU's issuance of Fee Revenue Bonds in 2006, or any other action ta k e n by Defendants, constituted a wrongful taking, an illegal assumption of ownership, an ille g a l use or misuse of another's property, or a wrongful detention or interference with a n o th e r' s property. See Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 657 So.2d 821, 823 (Ala. 1994). In d e e d , Berry even admits in his deposition that he has no evidence that Defendants used his w o rk product in the renovation of the ASU dormitories. Therefore, Defendants are entitled
to summary judgment on this claim. b. L o ss of Business Opportunity
B erry claims that Defendants are liable for "loss of business opportunity." However, th is Court has found no case that identifies "loss of business opportunity" under Alabama law a s a cause of action (as opposed to a form of damages), and Berry certainly fails to identify s u c h a case. Regardless, Berry has not presented evidence that any business opportunity was a c tu a lly lost, or evidence that Defendants caused Berry to lose business. Accordingly, D e f e n d a n ts are entitled to summary judgment on this Claim. c. C iv il Conspiracy
L iab ility for civil conspiracy rests upon the existence of an underlying wrong and if th e underlying wrong provides no cause of action, then neither does the conspiracy. Hooper v . Columbus Reg'l Healthcare Sys., 956 So. 2d 1135, 1141 (Ala. 2006). Therefore, because n o n e of Berry's underlying allegations have merit, neither does his civil conspiracy claim. 4. T C U 's Counterclaim
D e f en d a n ts TCU, Upchurch, and Thomas have filed a counterclaim against Berry for d e f am a tio n . In order to establish a claim for defamation, TCU has the burden to prove: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning TCU; (2) an unprivileged communication of th a t statement to a third party; (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of Berry; a n d (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of s p e c ia l harm caused by the publication of the statement. McCaig v. Talladega Pub. Co., 544
S o . 2d 875, 877 (Ala. 1989). TCU alleges that Berry told several individuals that TCU was u sin g "illegal" and "unethical" means to "steal" Berry's business from ASU. d e p o s itio n , Berry admitted that he did make these statements to these individuals. In determining whether Berry acted negligently in publishing the allegedly defamatory c o m m u n ic a tio n s to third parties, a court may take into account (a) the thoroughness of the ch ec k that a reasonable person would make before publishing the statement, (b) the nature o f the interests that Berry was seeking to promote in publishing the statement, and (3) the e x te n t of damage to which the statement exposed the plaintiff's reputation. Mead Corp. v. H ic k s, 448 So. 2d 308, 312 (Ala. 1984). W ith respect to the first factor, the Court finds that TCU has presented evidence that B e rry did not verify the veracity of his claims with the same thoroughness that a reasonable p e rs o n would use. Berry had no evidence that TCU used SSGBA's proprietary work product o n the dormitory restoration project, and he certainly had no evidence that TCU was using " ille g a l" means to get ASU to deny SSGBA the contract. Therefore, this factor weighs in T C U 's favor. T h e second factor is the nature of the interests that Berry was seeking to promote in m a k in g the statement. "Informing the public as to a matter of public concern is an important in te re st in a democracy; spreading of mere gossip is of less importance. . . . If there was no s u b s t a n tia l interest to protect in publishing the communication to these recipients, then a re a so n a b le person would be hesitant to publish the communication unless he had good reason In his
to believe that it was accurate." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 580B cmt. h (2008). The C o u rt finds that Berry's statements to these individuals was self-serving and was not intended to protect a "substantial interest." Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of TCU. T h e third factor is the extent of damage to which the statement exposed the plaintiff's re p u ta tio n . When weighing this factor, the Court may consider "Was the communication d e f am a to ry on its face? Would its defamatory connotation be known only to a few? How e x te n s iv e was the dissemination? How easily might the plaintiff protect his reputation by m e a n s at his own disposal?" Restatement (Second) of Torts § 580B cmt. h (2008). Here, the d i s s e m in a tio n was extremely limited because Berry's statements were only made to a few i n d i v i d u a ls . Furthermore, no evidence has been presented to this Court that TCU's
re p u ta tio n was damaged, or that it was ever in any danger of being damaged. Indeed, TCU d o e s not even allege that it has sustained any actual damage. Therefore, the Court finds that this factor weighs heavily in Berry's favor. A f te r weighing these factors, the Court finds that TCU has failed to meet its burden to show that Berry acted at least negligently in publishing the allegedly defamatory material. B e c au s e the Court makes this finding, it is unnecessary to analyze the other elements of d e f am a tio n . Consequently, TCU is not entitled to summary judgment on its defamation c o u n te rc la im . 5. T C U 's Motion for Fees and Costs
T C U has moved this Court to award fees and costs against Berry pursuant to the
A la b a m a Litigation Accountability Act, which states: (a ) . . . [I]n any civil action commenced or appealed in any court of record in th is state, the court shall award, as part of its judgment and in addition to any o th e r costs otherwise assessed, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs against any a tto rn e y or party, or both, who has brought a civil action, or asserted a claim th e re in , or interposed a defense, that a court determines to be without su b sta n tial justification, either in whole or part; ... (c ) The court shall assess attorneys' fees and costs against any party or attorney if the court, upon the motion of any party or on its own motion, finds that an a tto rn e y or party brought an action or any part thereof, or asserted any claim o r defense therein, that is without substantial justification. A la . Code § 12-19-272. The Court finds that TCU has failed to meet its burden to prove that B e rry brought claims that were "without substantial justification." See Sam v. Beaird, 685 S o . 2d 742, 745 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996) (no award under §12-19-272 where plaintiff's claims are not frivolous, or pursued in bad faith or with malicious intent). V . CONCLUSION A s stated above, this Court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment w ith respect to all of Plaintiffs' claims. The Court also finds that TCU is not entitled to s u m m a r y judgment with respect to its counterclaims. F o r the reasons set forth above, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that (1) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. ## 98, 103) be and the same a re hereby GRANTED. (2 ) Defendants' Motion for Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Alabama Litigation A c c o u n ta b ility Act (Doc. # 98) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
(3 ) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 100) be and the same is h e re b y DENIED. (4 ) Defendants' Motions to Strike (Docs. ## 132, 135) be and the same are hereby D E N IE D AS MOOT. (5 ) A ll of Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
D O N E this 24th day of November, 2008. /s/ Ira DeMent SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?