AMC Technology, L.L.C. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Filing
169
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART CISCO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING AMC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part 103 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 110 Motion for Summary Judgment (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
AMC TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
12
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
14
Defendant.
15
16
17
18
Case No.: 11-cv-3403 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DENYING AMC’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
(Re: Docket Nos. 103, 110)
In this commercial dispute, Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) moves for summary
judgment.1 Plaintiff AMC Technology, LLC (“AMC”) opposes, and has filed a summary
judgment motion of its own, on both its affirmative claims and Cisco’s counterclaims.2 Having
19
20
21
considered the papers and oral arguments of counsel, the court GRANTS-IN-PART Cisco’s motion
for summary judgment and DENIES AMC’s motion for summary judgment.
I.
22
23
BACKGROUND
Cisco develops and sells software to customer contact centers so that they can receive,
24
process, and route customer phone calls, texts, and other communications. These products include
25
Unified Contact Center Express (“UCCX”), which is marketed to small businesses, and Unified
26
1
See Docket No. 103.
2
See Docket No. 110.
27
28
1
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
Contact Center Enterprise (“UCCE”), which is marketed to larger businesses. Businesses that
2
purchase these products often also use customer relationship management (“CRM”) database
3
software, typically developed by other companies such as Microsoft, Oracle, and Salesforce. To
4
integrate Cisco’s software with third-party CRM software, Cisco’s customers need additional
5
connector or adapter software. AMC develops and licenses these connectors and adapters.
6
A.
Cisco and AMC Agree to a Deal
7
In 2007, Cisco and AMC entered into a software development and licensing agreement
8
9
(“Agreement”) whereby AMC agreed to modify a number of its existing connector or adapter
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
software products according to Cisco’s specifications, and Cisco agreed to license both modified
11
software and standard software.3 The purpose was to resell the adapted products under the Cisco
12
brand.4
13
14
The Agreement refers to the AMC software products to be modified as “Deliverables,”5
that are described pursuant to a “Statement of Work.”6 The first Statement of Work is attached as
15
16
Exhibit A to the Agreement and lists specific products to be developed,7 resources to be provided
17
by Cisco,8 content requirements for the Deliverables,9 and a delivery schedule for the
18
Deliverables.10 The contract also contemplates future Statements of Work, which would add
19
Deliverables to the relationship:
20
21
3
See Docket No. 111, Ex. 14.
22
4
See id.
23
5
See id. § 1.6.
24
6
See id. § 1.22.
25
7
See id., Ex. A § 2.
26
8
See id. § 3.
27
9
See id. § 5.1.1.
28
10
See id. § 5.1.2.
2
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
Additional Statements of Work. If Cisco desires to engage Licensor for additional services
which are not included in the Statement of Work and which do not constitute merely a
revision or modification of the Statement of Work, the parties shall in good faith negotiate
additional Statement of Work, each of which upon signing shall be deemed a part of this
Agreement. Additional Statements of Work shall be entered into by mutual agreement
between Cisco and Licensor and shall be substantially in the form of the Statement of Work
attached hereto. Each Statement of Work shall be signed by authorized representatives of
the parties. This Agreement may cover more than one Statement of Work at any given
time.11
1
2
3
4
5
6
The Agreement also specifies the process for delivery and rejection or acceptance of any
7
8
9
Deliverable. The way it was supposed to work is this. AMC develops the Deliverable according to
a specification and delivers it according to the schedule provided in the Statement of Work.12
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Cisco then reviews the Deliverable and within 15 days provides written notice of its acceptance or
11
rejection.13 If Cisco rejects the Deliverable, Cisco must provide written notice describing the
12
deficiencies not conforming to the Agreement specifications in “sufficient detail” for AMC to
13
correct them.14 AMC in turn corrects such deficiencies within 30 days, provided that AMC is not
14
delayed by “conditions outside its reasonable control.”15 This feedback loop is to continue at least
15
16
two more times, at which point Cisco is free to issue a final rejection.16 If Cisco issues a final
17
rejection of the Deliverable, AMC is to return any and all compensation already paid by Cisco for
18
that Deliverable and the Statement of Work terminates.17 Cisco then has the option to terminate
19
the Agreement with written notice.18
20
21
11
See id. § 3.11.
22
12
See id., Ex. B and Ex. A § 5.1.1.
23
13
See id. § 3.2.
24
14
Id.
25
15
Id.
26
16
See id.
27
17
See id.
28
18
See id.
3
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
As things turned out, AMC successfully developed a number of Deliverables under the
1
2
Agreement, which were accepted by Cisco and sold without issue. The parties have quarreled,
3
however, over two products – the “Siebel Adapter” and the “UCCX Connector” – giving rise to the
4
current suit.
5
B.
6
AMC Develops the Siebel Adapter
The first Statement of Work called for AMC to develop the Siebel Adapter.19 Originally,
7
8
9
the Statement of Work called for the Siebel Adapter work to be completed in two phases, the first
ending on September 14, 2007 and the second on October 31, 2007.20 The parties later agreed to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
an amended development schedule, with delivery of the functional specification by October 29,
11
2007, delivery of test plan and results by October 31, 2007, delivery of software on a gold CD by
12
November 2, 2007, and final testing of the software at Cisco’s lab in Boxborough, Massachusetts
13
during the week of November 5, 2007.21
14
On October 26, 2007, AMC sent an email to Cisco purporting to delivery the functional
15
16
specification.22 On October 29, 2007, Cisco responded by inquiring whether AMC had sent the
17
wrong document because the purported functional specification appeared to it to be nothing more
18
than a feature summary.23 AMC confirmed that it provided the correct document.24 On October
19
30, 2007, AMC sent the test plans, supplementing them on November 2, 2007.25 During the week
20
21
19
See id., Ex. A § 5.1.1.
20
See id. § 5.1.2.
21
See id., Ex. 7.
22
See id., Ex. 8.
23
See Docket No. 104, Ex. 9.
24
See id.
25
See Docket No. 111, Ex. 17-19.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
of November 5, 2007, AMC sent its engineers to test the software.26 Cisco was dissatisfied with
2
the shipment and on November 12, 2007 sent AMC a report identifying a list of issues for AMC to
3
address.27 Two days later, AMC responded, saying it had fixed 21 of the issues and was working
4
on the rest.28 On November 19, 2007, Cisco informed AMC that Cisco was discussing the Siebel
5
Adapter internally and that it was “leaning” towards conducting an audit of AMC’s testing and lab
6
resources.29 Cisco recommended that AMC “continue to solidify the Siebel [A]dapter with a goal
7
8
9
of being able to present a product that has extended testing and a high pass rate.”30 On November
30, 2007, AMC informed Cisco that of the 55 issues identified by Cisco, all but six were either
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
duplicates, non-issues, “potential upgrades,” or were resolved.31 The remaining six included one
11
error yet to be fixed, one error that AMC needed to test on Cisco systems to fix, and four errors that
12
required Cisco input.32 Cisco did not respond to AMC’s email.
13
14
Internally, on or around November 14, 2007, Cisco decided to “Re-Execute Commit” (“ReEC”) to the Siebel Adapter project and completely “revisit requirements, functional spec, gap
15
16
17
analysis” of the project.33 Re-EC is an internal Cisco process that essentially halts all work on the
project and turns resources elsewhere.34 Cisco then reevaluates the project, its requirements, and a
18
19
20
26
See id., Ex. 20.
21
27
See id., Ex. 21.
22
28
See id., Ex. 22.
23
29
See Docket No. 104, Ex. 15.
24
30
See id.
25
31
See Docket No. 111, Ex. 29.
26
32
See id.
27
33
See id., Ex. 24.
28
34
See id., Ex. 1 at 183:17-184:11.
5
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
2
potential new schedule for completion of the project.35 Cisco later communicated this intent to
AMC.36
3
Cisco never completed the Re-EC process.37 At a meeting in March 2008, Cisco
4
determined that no resources were available for the AMC Siebel Adapter project.38 AMC asked
5
Cisco several times over the course of the next year or so whether the project would proceed, but
6
Cisco explained it did not have enough resources.39 The project was never revived.
7
8
C.
The UCCX Connector Languishes
The UCCX Connector was not in the Summary of Development in the first Statement of
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Work.40 In original drafts, the UCCX Connector was included, but it was taken out by AMC’s
11
lawyer during contract negotiations.41 Some references to “UCCX” and “CCE/CCX” remained,
12
however, in other parts of the Agreement and the Statement of Work, including the royalty
13
14
payments schedule, a list of both standard and developed software to be licensed, and criteria for
functional testing.42 Although AMC asked for updates on the UCCX Connector project, Cisco
15
16
stated it did not have the resources to pursue the project and it never went forward.43
17
18
19
35
Id., Ex. 5 at 79:23-80:7.
36
See id., Ex. 25.
37
See, e.g, id. at 81-82.
38
See id., Ex. 37.
39
See id., Ex. 5 at 279:24-280:21.
40
See id., Ex. 14, Ex. A § 1.1.
41
See Docket No. 104, Ex. 31.
42
See Docket No. 111, Ex. 14, Ex A § 1.1, 3.1, 5.1.12.
43
See id., Ex. 5 at 279:24-280:21; Ex. 38.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
D.
Litigation Looms and Then Commences
2
On August 2, 2011, AMC sent Cisco notice of AMC’s intent to terminate the Agreement
3
“due to Cisco’s material violations” of the contract.44 Among other issues, the letter alleges that
4
Cisco breached the contract with respect to both the Siebel Adapter and UCCX Connector.45 On
5
September 6, 2011, AMC sent a letter to Cisco terminating the Agreement.46
6
7
8
9
On October 3, 2011, AMC filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging ten claims.47
After the court granted-in-part Cisco’s motion to dismiss the FAC and the parties stipulated to
dismissal of certain claims, all that remains of the FAC are AMC’s claims for breach of contract
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding the Siebel Adapter and the
11
UCCX Connector.48 Cisco filed counterclaims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of
12
good faith and fair dealing.49
13
II.
14
LEGAL STANDARDS
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is “no genuine dispute as to any material
15
16
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”50 There are two distinct steps to a
17
motion for summary judgment. The moving party bears the initial burden of production by
18
identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence
19
of a triable issue of material fact.51 Where the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, he
20
44
Id., Ex. 54.
45
See id.
46
See Docket No. 104, Ex. 40.
47
See Docket No. 34.
48
See Docket No. 64.
49
See Docket No. 77.
50
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
51
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
must “affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the
2
moving party.”52 If the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, however, he may
3
satisfy his burden of proof either by proffering “affirmative evidence negating an element of the
4
non-moving party’s claim,” or by showing the non-moving party has insufficient evidence to
5
establish an “essential element of the non-moving party’s claim.”53 If the moving party meets its
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
initial burden, the burden of production then shifts to the non-moving party, who must then provide
specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial.54 A material fact is one that might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.55 A dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is
such that reasonable minds could differ and find for either party.56
11
At this stage, the court does not weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility
12
determinations.57 Thus, in reviewing the record, the court must construe the evidence and the
13
14
inferences to be drawn from the underlying evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.58
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
52
Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007).
53
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 331.
54
See id. at 330; T.W. Elec. Service, Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 630, 630 (9th
Cir. 1987).
24
55
See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
25
56
See Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).
26
57
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d at 630.
27
58
28
See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
574, 587 (1986).
8
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
III.
1
2
A.
DISCUSSION
AMC’s Breach of Contract Claims
3
1.
Siebel Adapter
4
As the party with the burden of proof at trial, to secure summary judgment on its breach of
5
contract claims regarding the Siebel Adapter, AMC must prove “affirmatively demonstrate that no
6
reasonable trier of fact could find other than” in its favor on every element of this claim.59 Cisco
7
8
9
not only opposes the motion, but further urges that summary judgment should be granted in its
favor because AMC has insufficient evidence to establish at trial at least one essential element of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
its claim.60 Given these dueling motions on the Siebel Adapter breach claim, the question before
11
the court is simple – construing the evidence in favor of each party, could a reasonable jury to find
12
in favor of that party? Because court finds that the answer is yes, neither party is entitled to
13
summary judgment.
14
Here’s why. At its heart, AMC’s breach of contract claim on the Siebel Adapter alleges
15
16
that Cisco failed to properly engage in the accept-or-reject process for this Deliverable. To prove
17
breach of contract, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the existence of a contract, (2) plaintiff’s
18
performance, or excuse for nonperformance, and (3) the defendant’s breach.61
19
20
21
AMC and Cisco both agree that the Siebel Adapter was a Deliverable under the Agreement,
meaning the terms of the Agreement governed each party’s duties regarding the Siebel Adapter.
Where they disagree is whether AMC performed under the contract, or was excused from
22
performing, and whether Cisco breached the contract by failing to perform.
23
24
25
59
Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984.
60
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 331.
61
See Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI LLC, 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1614 (2011).
26
27
28
9
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
Before delving into the particular facts surrounding the Siebel Adapter delivery, a review of
1
2
the relevant terms of the Agreement is warranted. The Statement of Work attached to the
3
Agreement requires more than just software. Instead, each Deliverable be comprised of the
4
following:
5
(1) “Modifications to Licensor’s Multi-Channel Integration Suite to ensure such Software
complies with the Specifications” (i.e. the software itself),
(2) “Certifications of the Software from all CRM vendors that provide a formal certification
program. Copies of the certificates shall be delivered to Cisco” (“third-party
certification”),
(3) “Functional Specifications and other documentation as set out in the Agreement and
Exhibits thereto, including but not limited to: product description, design guide,
installation guide, configuration and administration guide, and trouble shooting guide”
(the “functional specifications”), and
(4) “[S]uch testing and quality assurance of the Software as agreed in writing with Cisco or
as reasonably requested by Cisco” (“testing results”).62
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
a.
13
14
First Delivery
AMC asserts it delivered the Siebel Adapter according to its obligations under the contract.
On November 5, 2007, AMC delivered the modified Siebel Adapter software to Cisco.63 On
15
16
October 26, 2007, AMC delivered what it contends were the functional specifications.64 On
17
October 30, 2007, AMC delivered test results.65 On November 2, 2007, AMC delivered additional
18
user documentation.66 Although AMC did not deliver the third-party certification, which in this
19
case would be provided by Oracle, AMC claims that Oracle could not issue the third-party
20
certification until Cisco had finally approved the software.67
21
22
62
See Docket No. 111, Ex. 14 § 5.1.1.
63
See id., Ex. 8 at 54:25-55:18.
64
See id., Ex. 15; Ex. 4 at 54:25-55:5.
65
See id., Ex. 17.
66
See id., Ex. 18, 19.
67
See id. at 12.
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
The court must comment that Cisco appears to take conflicting positions as to whether
1
2
AMC indeed achieved delivery as required by the contract. While in its own motion for summary
3
judgment, Cisco does not dispute that AMC delivered at least the Siebel Adapter itself,68 Cisco
4
argues in opposition to AMC’s motion that AMC’s delivery nevertheless was inadequate.69 In any
5
event, what AMC ignores is that its delivery obligation was for a Deliverable, not just the software
6
7
piece of that Deliverable. As a result, the missing third-party Oracle certification alone is sufficient
issue to deny AMC’s summary judgment motion on this claim. Substantial performance occurs
8
9
when there was “no willful departure from the terms of the contract, and no omission of any of its
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
essential parts.” 70 While Cisco did not object to that omission at the time of receipt, a reasonable
11
jury could conclude that the Oracle certification was an essential part of the delivery obligation
12
such that without the certification, the delivery did not constitute substantial performance.71 Under
13
such circumstances, summary judgment to AMC on this issue is not justified.
14
b.
Rejection and Redelivery
15
Cisco is not fortunate, however, as to the remaining aspects of AMC’s performance, such
16
17
that it should prevail on its own motion. First, while it is undisputed that Cisco sent an error list of
18
55 issues with the Siebel Adapter software for AMC to resolve,72 it is very much disputed whether
19
Cisco provided “sufficient detail” in its list of the nonconformance to the specifications to allow
20
21
22
23
24
68
See Docket No. 103 at 17. Cisco’s 30(b)(6) witness also agreed as much. See Docket No. 111,
Ex. 8 at 53:25-54:18.
69
See Docket No. 128 at 10-11.
70
In re Kinney Aluminum Co. 78. F.Supp. 565, 567-68 (S.D. Cal. 1948).
71
See id.
72
See Docket No. 111, Ex. 21.
25
26
27
28
11
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
2
AMC to correct the problem.73 The sufficiency of the detail of Cisco’s list to allow AMC to fix
problems is an open question that a reasonable jury could decide in AMC’s favor.
AMC might also persuade a reasonable jury as to whether AMC redelivered the Siebel
3
4
Adapter. AMC claims that although it did not physically redeliver the Siebel Adapter, the
5
doctrines of tender, prevention, and futility excused AMC’s nonperformance and triggered Cisco’s
6
duty to perform.
7
First, AMC contends that its communications to Cisco on November 29 and 30, 2007
8
9
constituted a tender of redelivery to Cisco. Tender, or an offer for full performance, extinguishes
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the tendering party’s obligation to perform and triggers the other party’s duty to perform.74 It must
11
be made with the intent to extinguish the obligation.75 To be operative, the offer must be made in
12
good faith, unconditional, and the party must be willing and able to perform.76 On November 29,
13
2007, AMC’s representative Anthony Uliano (“Uliano”) called Cisco employees Richard Jefts
14
(“Jefts”) and Mike Bergelson (“Bergelson”) to inform Cisco of the status of the Siebel Adapter.77
15
16
According to Uliano, he explained that of the six issues yet unresolved by AMC, four required
17
some kind of input from Cisco, and two others could be easily fixed.78 On November 30, 2007,
18
Uliano emailed Jefts and Bergelson providing much of the same information – the email purported
19
20
21
22
73
See id., Ex. 14 § 3.2.
23
74
See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1485, 1486.
24
75
See id.
25
76
26
See Arnolds Mgmt. Corp. v. Eischen, 158 Cal. App. 3d 575, 580 (1984); See also Cal. Civ. Code
§§ 1493-95.
77
See Docket No. 110-1 ¶¶ 4-5.
78
See id.
27
28
12
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
2
to deliver “the latest on the Siebel Adapter,” with a list of current issues showing six issues
remained to be fixed.79
Accordingly, there is a question as to whether AMC’s offer constituted tender. While Cisco
3
4
is quite right that a jury might question AMC’s willingness and ability to fully perform if only
5
Cisco would consent, it should be left to the jury to weigh the evidence and determine what was
6
said in that phone conversation, and whether AMC’s message was sufficient to effect tender.
7
Second, AMC argues that even if its performance was not enough to constitute tender,
8
9
AMC’s performance was excused because Cisco prevented it. “[W]here one contracting party
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
prevents the other’s performance of a condition precedent, the party burdened by the condition is
11
excused from performing it, and the benefited party’s duty of performance becomes
12
unconditional.”80 AMC argues that Cisco prevented AMC’s performance by initiating the Re-EC
13
process on the Siebel Adapter project. The Re-EC decision sent the project “back to the drawing
14
board,” freezing the project and redistributing committed resources until Cisco re-evaluated the
15
16
project.81 After Cisco made the Re-EC decision, Cisco no longer had any engineers or resources
17
dedicated to working with AMC on the Siebel Adapter project. Cisco also never responded to
18
AMC’s November 14 status report, nor provided the information AMC claims was necessary to
19
complete the revisions. A reasonable factfinder might conclude that, all of this evidence
20
notwithstanding, in light of the Agreement’s purpose, which Cisco argues was to allow Cisco to
21
22
hire out development of adapters with minimal commitment of internal resources, Cisco did not
prevent AMC’s redelivery. But it might not. Once again, such disputes are best left to the jury to
23
24
resolve.
25
79
26
80
27
City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co., 165 Cal. App. 4th 455, 490 (2008). See also Cal Civ.
Code § 1511.
81
28
Docket No. 112, Ex. 29.
See Docket No. 111, Ex. 5 at 79:23-80:7; Ex. 24; Ex. 8 at 89:5-11.
13
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
Third, AMC argues that delivery would have been futile because Cisco had already decided
1
2
to Re-EC the Siebel Adapter project. Acts are futile where the defendant has expressly refused to
3
accept performance, the defendant indicates through conduct that it will not accept performance, or
4
performance would otherwise be pointless.82 A reasonable jury could find that in light of Cisco’s
5
decision to Re-EC the Siebel Adapter, Cisco would not have accepted redelivery of the product.
6
In sum, the issue of whether either party breached the Agreement with respect to the Siebel
7
8
Adapter must be presented to a jury.
2.
9
The court next turns to AMC’s claim that Cisco breached the Agreement by refusing to
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
UCCX Connector
11
accept the UCCX Connector. This claim turns on whether the UCCX Connector was a Deliverable
12
under the Agreement.83
13
14
Under California law, contract interpretation is a two-step process: first, the court looks to
see if there is any “ambiguity” in the contract, or whether the language is “reasonably susceptible
15
16
17
to the interpretation urged by a party.”84 Only in the event that there is an ambiguity does the court
proceed to consider the extrinsic evidence in interpreting the contract.85
Although other products and standard software were licensed by the parties and included in
18
19
the royalty payments section, the contract clearly only subjects Deliverables to the development
20
and delivery schedule and the accept-or-reject process.86 Under the plain terms of the Agreement,
21
22
82
23
See Gross v. Raeburn, 219 Cal. App. 2d 792, 807 (1963), Sutherland v. Barclays
American/Mortgage Corp., 53 Cal. App. 4th 299, 312-13 (1997); Garcia v. World Savings, FSB,
183 Cal. App. 4th 1031, 1042-43 (2010).
24
83
25
84
26
See Docket No. 64 at 9.
In re Facebook DPC Advertising Litigation, 709 F.Supp.2d 762, 769 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing
Wolf v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1343, 1351 (2004)).
85
27
See id.
86
28
See Docket No. 111, Ex. 14 § 3.2 (“Acceptance: Upon delivery of the Deliverables…”); Ex. A
(“Deliverables; Delivery Dates”).
14
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
then, AMC’s duty to develop and deliver and Cisco’s corresponding duty to accept or reject arises
2
only where an item is designated a Deliverable. Thus, even if Cisco licensed the UCCX Connector
3
software,87 an obligation to further accept an adapted version of that software does not exist unless
4
the UCCX Connector is properly characterized as a “Deliverable.”
5
6
As already discussed, Deliverables are by definition only those projects listed in any
Statements of Work expressly executed by the parties.88 The Statement of Work contains the
7
8
following summary of products to be developed:
Summary of Development.
Licensor agrees to modify Licensor’s Multi-Channel Integration Suite to interconnect Cisco
Unified Contact Center, Enterprise and Hosted as well as ICM Enterprise and Hosted with
the following CRM software:
Siebel
SAP CRM
Microsoft Outlook
Microsoft CRM
PeopleSoft
Salesforce.com89
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
This summary of products to be modified plainly does not include “UCCX” or “Unified Contact
16
Center Express.”
17
AMC argues that the UCCX Connector was nevertheless a Deliverable under the
18
19
Agreement. AMC submits that there are other references to the UCCX Connector in the Statement
20
of Work, raising at least a triable inference that the UCCX Connector was intended to be a
21
Deliverable. However, the references identified by AMC are scattered and abstract at best. In
22
“Acceptance Testing and Acceptance Criteria,” the Agreement provides that “Software
23
interoperability testing will consist of testing the Software in an environment which consists of a
24
25
26
87
The UCCX Connector appears in the Agreement under a list of standard and developed software
to be licensed by Cisco. See Docket No. 111, Ex. 14, Ex. A. See also Docket No. 104, Ex. 3, 4.
88
See Docket No. 111, Ex. 14 § 1.6.
89
Id., Ex. A § 2.
27
28
15
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
live CCX and CCE system.”90 AMC argues that this is another name for the Unified Contact
2
Center Express. Even if that were true, these statements reference operation testing conditions and
3
criteria rather than indicate any intent to treat the UCCX Connector as a product to be adapted by
4
AMC and licensed to Cisco. 91 The legal maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” applies
5
here – where a list of Deliverables is explicitly provided, it strains credibility to contend that
6
7
8
abstract references to a product elsewhere in the contract can create ambiguity as to whether it is
also a Deliverable.92
The extrinsic evidence does not create any ambiguity in this plain interpretation, but
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
supports it. During negotiation, Cisco and AMC discussed including both UCCE and UCCX
11
Connectors in the contract.93 An earlier draft included both UCCE and UCCX Connectors.94
12
However, Cisco wanted to focus on the UCCE first because of greater demand on that side of the
13
business and asked AMC to remove the UCCX project.95 The parties agreed to remove the UCCX
14
Connector from the first phase in order to focus on other projects. AMC’s President Uliano sent an
15
16
17
email to Cisco about the first draft, stating: “Also, I thought Express wasn’t going to happen in this
phase, so we should probably remove it.”96 Accordingly, AMC’s lawyers made the revision
18
90
19
Id. § 5.1.1.
91
20
21
See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 1, 18 (1995) (“language in a contract must
be interpreted as a whole, and in the circumstances of the case, and cannot be found to be
ambiguous in the abstract. Courts will not strain to create an ambiguity where none exists.”).
92
24
Black v. Richfield Oil Corp., 41 F. Supp. 988, 995 (S.D. Cal. 1941) aff'd 146 F.2d 801 (9th Cir.
1944). See also Cal. Civ. Code § 3534 (“Particular expressions qualify those which are general”);
Scudder v. Perce, 159 Cal. 429, 433, 114 P. 571, 573 (1911) (“the familiar rule [is] that when
general and specific provisions of a contract deal with the same subject-matter, the specific
provisions, if inconsistent with the general provisions, are of controlling force”).
25
93
See Docket No. 104, Ex. 36 at 37:15-39:12.
26
94
See id., Ex. 30.
27
95
See Docket No. 104, Ex. 36 at 37:15-39:12.
28
96
Id., Ex. 30.
22
23
16
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
editing the term “Unified Contact Center Express, Enterprise” in the “Summary of Development”
2
to read only “Unified Contact Center, Enterprise.”97 As AMC admits, they made this change
3
because although Cisco wanted the UCCX Connector, it “did not want it immediately.”98 AMC
4
agrees that the UCCX Connector was “Phase 2” of the project,99 which implies they knew that the
5
UCCX Connector was not part of any current Statement of Work.
6
7
8
9
AMC alternatively contends that post-contract communications “modified” the Statement
of Work to include the UCCX Connector as a Deliverable. Section 3.11 provides that “If Cisco
desires to engage Licensor for additional services which are not included in the Statement of Work
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
and which do not constitute merely a revision or modification of the Statement of Work, the parties
11
shall in good faith negotiation additional Statements of Work,” which must be in writing and
12
signed by party representatives by both sides.100 AMC points to an email chain between the two
13
14
parties as such a revision. As with any contract, a modification requires mutual assent between the
parties, as evidenced by a “reasonable meaning of the words and acts of the parties, and not from
15
16
their unexpressed intentions or understanding.”101 The email chain shows that Cisco employee
17
Willem Nijenhuis (“Nijenhuis”) stated, “We are going to move ahead with the Connector project
18
for CCX now.”102 In response, AMC’s representative Uliano asked, “Will we start on that phase
19
after this one, or do you want us to try to get it done with this one?” apparently in reference to the
20
21
22
97
See id.; See also id. Ex. 31, Ex. 27.
98
See Docket No. 134 at 22.
99
Docket No. 136, Ex. 3.
23
24
25
100
26
See id., § 3.11.
101
27
1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th Ed. 2005) Contracts, § 116; § 964. See also Cal. Civ.
Code §§ 1550, 1565.
28
102
Docket No. 136, Ex. 2.
17
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
UCCE and UCCX Connectors.103 Nijenhuis then responded, “That’s one of the many questions we
2
need to answer. It’s probably too[] late to really let in run parallel with the CEE one, but I’d like to
3
have it follow as close as possible.”104 Lastly, Uliano responded “I think with all the work we’re
4
doing, we should be able to immediately move on to the IPCC-X phase. I’ll talk to the team and
5
get back to you.”105 There is no evidence in this email exchange that can be construed as mutual
6
7
8
9
assent, either to create a modification in the current list of Deliverables or to add another Statement
of Work to include the UCCX Connector as a Deliverable. Uliano even explicitly says “I’ll… get
back to you,” rather than words of assent, even on AMC’s part. With no offer, acceptance, and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
mutual assent that Cisco can point to, there can be no modification or Statement of Work
11
establishing the UCCX Connector as a Deliverable.106
12
13
14
Even if the UCCX Connector were somehow construed to be an Agreement Deliverable,
AMC cannot prove that it delivered all of the components required to trigger Cisco’s corresponding
duties under the contract. AMC contends that it delivered a CD containing both the UCCE and
15
16
UCCX Connectors. But as noted previously, delivery requires not only delivery of the software,
17
but also specifications, test results, and third-party certification. AMC cannot establish that it
18
completed those steps, meaning it never completed delivery and Cisco had no obligation to accept
19
or reject. Under the facts presented, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
20
AMC, no reasonable jury could conclude that Cisco breached an express term of the contract by
21
22
failing to accept the UCCX Connector. For these reasons, summary judgment in favor of Cisco
must be granted on AMC’s breach of contract claim with respect to the UCCX Connector.
23
24
103
Id.
25
104
Id.
26
105
Id.
27
106
28
See American Bldg. Maintenance Co. v. Indem. Ins. Co. of North America, 214 Cal. 608, 615
(1932).
18
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
AMC’s Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Claims
B.
AMC brings four claims against Cisco for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
2
3
fair dealing. Both AMC and Cisco seek summary judgment on these claims, again raising the
4
question of whether a reasonable jury could decide in either party’s favor. The implied covenant
5
“imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its
6
enforcement.”107 The implied covenant “is aimed at making effective the agreement's
7
8
9
promises.”108 A plaintiff can show this by demonstrating “a failure or refusal to discharge
contractual responsibilities, prompted not by an honest mistake, bad judgment or negligence but
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
rather by a conscious and deliberate act, which unfairly frustrates the agreed common purposes and
11
disappoints the reasonable expectations of the other party thereby depriving that party of the
12
benefits of the agreement.”109
13
1.
14
Failing to provide customers with AMC’s maintenance releases and updates
The court previously dismissed this claim with leave to amend, finding that Section 3.7 of
15
16
the Agreement does not provide for any obligation for Cisco to distribute AMC’s maintenance
17
releases and updates. The Agreement merely requires AMC to provide Cisco with maintenance
18
releases and updates, but does not say why.110 AMC argues that while there is no express
19
obligation for Cisco to distribute releases and updates to customers, Cisco had an implied
20
obligation to do so. But AMC does not provide any evidence supporting this skeletal theory.
21
AMC states only that Cisco’s failure to distribute AMC releases “caused customers to complain to
22
23
24
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal. 3d 654, 683 (1988).
108
Id.
109
Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc., 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371, 1395 (Ct. App. 1990).
110
25
107
See Docket No. 111, Ex. 14 § 2.2.
26
27
28
19
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
AMC about software problems.”111 While surely an inconvenient result for AMC, AMC has
2
provided no evidence as to why a failure to distribute updates to customers unfairly frustrates the
3
reasonable expectations under the agreement.112 Summary judgment here in Cisco’s favor is
4
warranted.
5
2.
6
Failing to comply with the provision in the Agreement requiring Cisco to
accept or reject the AMC Siebel Adapter
7
This claim overlaps with the breach of contract claim regarding the Siebel Adapter. “If the
8
allegations do not go beyond the statement of a mere contract breach and, relying on the same
9
alleged acts, simply seek the same damages or other relief already claimed in a companion contract
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
cause of action, they may be disregarded as superfluous as no additional claim is actually
11
12
stated.”113 As a result, to the extent that AMC contends here that Cisco failed to accept or reject
13
the Siebel Adapter in the same way that it asserts Cisco breached the contract by engaging in the
14
same, Cisco is entitled to summary judgment.
15
3.
16
Cisco argues that statements made about Cisco’s intent to transfer customers from the Cisco
17
Making false promises with respect to the development of the Siebel Adapter
Siebel Adapter to the AMC Siebel Adapter made before the parties executed the Agreement are not
18
actionable. The court agrees. The implied covenant does not exist prior to the contract, so it does
19
20
not require the parties to “negotiate in good faith prior to any agreement.”114 Thus, statements
21
made only in negotiation, prior to any contract, occurred when no contractual duties existed and
22
therefore cannot form the basis for an implied covenant claim. Once again, summary judgment in
23
Cisco’s favor is warranted.
24
111
Docket No. 134 at 20.
112
See Careau & Co., 222 Cal. App. 3d at 1395.
113
Id.
114
McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC, 159 Cal. App. 4th 784, 799 (2008).
25
26
27
28
20
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
2
4.
3
Denying AMC the fundamental benefits of the Agreement with respect to the
UCCX Connector
4
AMC’s main implied covenant claims center on whether Cisco in bad faith denied AMC
5
6
the opportunity to reap royalty payments, as provided for in the contract, for both the Siebel
7
Adapter and the UCCX Connector. The Agreement provides that Cisco if developed software is
8
accepted, Cisco must pay AMC a set amount to compensate AMC for non-recurring engineering
9
costs, as well as a prepaid royalty amount.115 There is no express obligation for Cisco to market or
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
sell the products. However, in the event that Cisco did sell the products, Cisco agreed to pay AMC
11
12
additional royalty payments and maintenance fees.116
a.
13
Siebel Adapter
AMC argues that Cisco frustrated this possibility of additional payments by completely
14
15
refusing to work with AMC on the Siebel Adapter project. While Cisco again argues that it is not
16
expressly required to provide any additional resources other than those specified in the Agreement,
17
if “cooperation of the other party is necessary for successful performance of an obligation, a
18
promise to give that cooperation… will often be implied.”117 While the express terms do not
19
20
21
require additional resources from Cisco, they do not preclude additional resources. In fact, the
Agreement specifically contemplates the possibility that Cisco may provide additional resources:
Cisco Property:
4.8.1. During the term of this Agreement, Cisco may provide equipment, designs, materials,
software and other property of Cisco, including any and all pre-existing technology of
22
23
24
25
115
See Docket No. 111, Ex. 14 § 3.2, 3.3.
116
See id. § 3.4.
117
1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, Contracts § 798 (10th Ed. 2005).
26
27
28
21
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
Cisco (collectively “Cisco Property”) to Licensor for its use in fulfilling its obligations
hereunder.118
1
2
More fundamentally, though, both parties have presented evidence as to whether Cisco denied
3
basic information necessary to complete the project. For example, AMC submits evidence that it
4
5
needed Cisco’s existing Siebel Driver to make certain technical changes,119 as well as evidence of
6
internal decisions by Cisco to discontinue the project and Cisco’s failure to respond to AMC
7
requests for information. Cisco in turn offers evidence that it sent AMC all necessary information,
8
including a copy of its existing Siebel Driver.120 A reasonable jury could go either way on this
9
question of whether Cisco frustrated the purpose of the Agreement, which requires that jury and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
not the undersigned to resolve this issue.
11
b.
12
UCCX Connector
AMC also asserts that Cisco violated the implied covenant by not pursuing the UCCX
13
14
Connector project. As established previously, under the Agreement Cisco appears to have had a
15
non-exclusive license to the UCCX Connector, but the parties did not set the project in motion.
16
Unlike the Siebel Adapter, the UCCX was not a Deliverable. Cisco did not contract AMC to
17
develop the UCCX Connector, and so does not have any implied obligations to cooperate with
18
AMC regarding development of the UCCX Connector. AMC suggests that licensing the product,
19
20
standing alone, creates an obligation to sell the product. But this theory of the implied covenant
21
must be rejected because the implied covenant must rest upon “the existence of some specific
22
contractual obligation.”121 This is because the implied covenant is limited to ensuring that the
23
parties receive the benefits of their agreement.122 Merely accepting a non-exclusive license to a
24
25
118
See id. § 4.8.
26
119
See Docket 134, Ex. 6 at 232:13-16; Ex. 1 at 273:13-275:5; Ex. 14 at 73:10-75:21.
27
120
121
See Docket No. 129, Ex. 7 at 161:5-17; Ex. 14 at 266:13-269:18, 273:13-274:2; Ex. 15; Ex. 16.
Racine & Laramie, Ltd. v. Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1026, 1031 (1992).
28
22
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
product does not give rise to a “specific contractual obligation” to hire AMC to develop a modified
2
version of that product, and then go on to sell that product to others.123 AMC also was free to sell
3
the product to others, differentiating this case from others where a covenant to sell was implied.124
4
Summary judgment in favor of Cisco on this issue is warranted.
5
C.
6
Cisco’s Counterclaims
AMC alone moves for summary judgment on Cisco’s counterclaims. Cisco’s first
7
8
9
counterclaim is that AMC breached the contract by (1) failing to deliver the Siebel Adapter and (2)
prematurely terminating the Agreement. As to the first ground for breach, as discussed above there
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
is a disputed issue of material fact of whether AMC delivered the Siebel Adapter. As to the second
11
ground for breach, AMC contends that because Cisco was in breach of the contract, it cannot argue
12
that AMC’s termination was premature. However, as also noted in the above discussion, it is
13
14
disputed whether Cisco breached the contract. If a jury were to find that Cisco did not breach, it
could also find that AMC’s termination was unjustified. Summary judgment is thus improper.
15
As its second counterclaim, Cisco also asserts AMC breached the implied covenant of good
16
17
faith by “failing to dedicate sufficient infrastructure and manpower resources to fulfill its
18
development and testing obligations for the AMC Siebel Adapter pursuant to the terms of the OEM
19
Agreement.”125 Cisco has presented evidence raising at least a disputed issue of fact as to whether
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
See Careau & Co., 222 Cal. App. 3d at 1395.
123
Cf. Locke v. Warner Bros., Inc., 57 Cal. App. 4th 354, 358 (1997) (holding that where Warner
Bros. paid Locke for a first look deal whereby Locke was required to submit any movie project to
Warner Bros. first before submitting to other studios, and Warner Bros. had accepted Clint
Eastwood’s offer to reimburse Warner Bros. so long as it categorically refused all of Locke’s
submissions, Warner Bros. breached the implied covenant because it had a express contractual duty
to consider Locke’s proposals in good faith).
124
27
Cf. Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88, 91 (1917) (holding that plaintiff’s “sole
compensation for the grant of an exclusive agency is to be one-half of all the profits” resulting
from the defendant’s sales, so the defendant had an implied duty to use “best efforts” to create
sales).
28
125
26
Docket No. 128 at 23.
23
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
1
AMC did so. For example, AMC’s own employees admitted to sometimes overcommitting and
2
missing deadlines.126 Additional evidence discussed above supports Cisco’s contention that
3
AMC’s delivery was far from perfect. It would be reasonable, therefore, for a jury to conclude that
4
AMC did not follow the contract in good faith.
5
IV.
6
7
8
9
CONCLUSION
AMC’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Cisco’s motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED as to AMC’s breach of contract claim regarding the UCCX Connector, but DENIED
as to the Siebel Adapter. Cisco’s motion for summary judgment as to AMC’s claims for breach of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the implied covenant is GRANTED as to claims based on Cisco’s failure to provide upgrades and
11
release updates to customers, GRANTED as to claims based solely on Cisco’s failure to adhere to
12
the accept-or-reject provision for the Siebel Adapter, GRANTED as to the UCCX Connector, but
13
DENIED as to Cisco’s failure to cooperate on the Siebel Adapter.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated: July 11, 2013
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
126
28
See Docket No. 129, Ex. 6 at 198:9-20, 227:5-13; Ex. 3 at 223:3-224:5; Ex. 5; Ex. 3 at 220:23221:18.
24
Case No.: 11-3403 PSG
ORDER
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?