Corbin Bernsen v. Innovative Legal Marketing, LLC

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 45 Report and Recommendations.; granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. The court, having examined Bernsen's Objection to the R&R, and having reviewed the record and made de novo findings with respect to the portion objected to, does hereby adopt and approve the findings and recommendations set forth in Sections A and C(2)-(5) of the R&R, concerning the morality clause in the Agreement and dismissal of Bernsen's unjust enrichment claim. The court does hereby modify the findings and recommendations set forth in Section C(l) of the R&R, concerning a conclusion of law on ILM's potential waiver of its rights under the Agreement, as discussed above. Accordingly, ILM's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court finds as a matter of law that the language of the Agreement includes a morality clause; however, the court declines to find as a matter of law that ILM has not waived its rights under the Agreement, because a material fact remains in dispute, namely ILM's intent to waive. The court DENIES ILM's motion as to Bernsen's alleged breach of the morality clause, because material facts remain in dispute concerning Bernsen's conduct and waiver. Finally, the court GRANTS ILM's motion on Bernsen's claim for unjust enrichment, and DISMISSES that claim. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to counsel for all parties. Signed by District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 8/14/12. Copies distributed to all parties 8/15/12. (ldab, )

FILED
UNITED

STATES

EASTERN

DISTRICT

DISTRICT

Norfolk

OF

COURT

AUG

VIRGINIA

1 4 2012

Division

CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT
NORFOLK, VA

CORBIN

BERNSEN,

Plaintiff,
v.

ACTION NO.

INNOVATIVE

LEGAL

MARKETING,

2:llcv546

LLC,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

This

matter

Judgment
April

filed

27,

Federal

The
and

Judge

and

20,

Rule

of

Civil

part

recommended

had

not

language

ILM's

that

waived

with
of

its

the

Corbin

the

("ILM")

by

on

May

Order

U.S.C.

§

on

States

18,

2012,

636(b)fl)(B)

argument

on

June

Recommendation

j udge

court

recommended
Specifically,

find
under

Bernsen

Agreement

LLC

Summary

United

oral

motion.

rights

for

and

72(b).

and

magistrate

Motion

to

28

heard

Report

a

referred

Miller
of

on

Marketing,

was

Procedure

judge

The

in

motion

E.

court

Legal

provisions

his

2012.

("Agreement")
the

the

magistrate

granting

j udge
ILM

Douglas

to

the

Innovative
The

filed

June

by

before

2012.

Magistrate
pursuant

comes

ORDER

as
a

a

included

denying
the

and

morality

on

in

part

magistrate

of

spokesperson

a

2012,

("R&R")

matter

("Bernsen"),

5,

law

that

agreement

that

while

clause,

the

court

should

deny

that

clause.

recommended
for

unjust

the

R&R,

ILM's
R&R

that

the

court

parties

and

thereto.

Plaintiff's

Objection

&

Response

on

July

Pursuant
Procedure,

the

entirety,
of

the

Civ.
whole

shall

R&R

P.
or

to

2012,

By

to

file

the

Judge

court

Miller's

copy

of

written
received

June

Objection").

claim

ILM

20,

2012

filed

its

72(b)

court,

make

a

of

having

de_

has

specifically

court

in

the

recommendation
to

may

him

accept,
of

with

Rules

the

determination

The

matter

Federal

reviewed

novo

Bernsen

the

record

of

its

portions

objected.
or

Civil

in

those

reject,
the

of

Fed.

modify,

magistrate

instructions.

R.
in

judge,

or

28

U.S.C.

and

having

636(b)(1).

The
made

de

court,
novo

Objection.
forth

in

ILM's

Motion

IN

Bernsen's

right

5,

July

further

Id.

their

of

2012.

which

the

claim.

breach

judge

on

of

("Bernsen's

Rule

part,

motion

that

72(b).

recommit

§

19,

to

advised

alleged

magistrate

ILM's

Magistrate

Recommendation

Bernsen's

The

grant

On

to

to

dismiss

were

objections

Report

as

23-24.

enrichment

the

motion

the

PART.

determination

having

findings

examined
with

Accordingly,
R&R

are

for

Summary

At
on

a

respect

the

adopted

in

part

Motion

is

level,
for

Objection

thereto,

findings

Judgment

threshold
ILM's

Bernsen's

sustains

and

and

recommendations

modified

GRANTED

IN

however,
Summary

Bernsen's

in

PART
in

part,
and

making

Judgment,

the

set
and

DENIED
this
court

ADOPTS

the

recommended

findings

of

undisputed

material

fact

set

when

the

forth in the R&R.1
I.

Summary
court,

issue

of

judgment
477

judgment

viewing

favorable

to

the

the

as

a

if

the

has

element

that

burden
317,

of

323

To

a

Rule
as

and

of

that

finds

on

v.

Celotex

v.

genuine

Lobby,
grant

of

party

most

entitled

adequate

that

Corp.

no

is

should

existence

which

light

is

Liberty

after

the

the

party

court

party,

in

there

moving

A

case,

appropriate

and

Anderson

establish

trial.

is

whole

the

(1986).

party's
at

a

law.

to

56

party,

nonmoving

failed

proof

Inc.,

summary

time

an

to

for

essential

will

bear

Catrett,

477

the
U.S.

(1986).

defeat

party must
relying

fact

248-50

discovery,

of

record

matter

242,

judgment

under

nonmoving

material

U.S.

Summary Judgment: Standard

go

upon

genuine

a

beyond

the

for

without

for
facts

affidavits,

issue

statements,

motion

trial.

v.

1998) .

"there

must

find

1 See R&R 2-8.

for

the

See

specific

Causey

reasonably

alleged

depositions,

insufficient.
Rather,

summary

Balog,
be

judgment,
in
or

at

evidence
324.

evidentiary
162

F.3d
on

instead
to

support,
802

which

the

477

show

Conclusory

795,

Anderson,

nonmoving

pleadings,

other

id.

evidence

plaintiff."

the

the

U.S.

are

(4th
jury
at

Cir.
could

252.

II.

Bernsen

magistrate

raises

judge's

waived

its

alleged

one

violation
the

to
of

the

court

of

law,

"ILM

Bernsen's

sustains

the

"[w]hile

Bernsen

theoretically be

"that

ILM

violations
conduct
both

of

for

parties

waiver

the

some

Examining

Virginia

For

See
Elec.

of

ILM

has

the

not

on

based

any

reasons

under

a

set

to

put

to

as

Co.

the

any

ILM's

1;

v.

Norfolk

jury

that,
can

evidence
Resp.

1.

allegation
for

knew

his

about

R&R

9.

unambiguous

Obj.

ILM

Agreement

him."
an

a

clause

forth

an

alleged

Response

company

contains

waive

raises

the

terminating

Bernsen's
Power

the

contract."

Bernsen's

terminate

clause

for

clause."

matter

whether

non-waiver

addressed
to

thus

its

a

may

Agreement

in

as

the

party

and

the

failed

R&R

that,

agreement

that

Agreement

&

R&R

a

contends

has

prior

the

the

clause

right

morality
time

the

the non-waiver

the

its

agree,

provision.

he

in

conduct,

correct

of

waived

that

the

Objection.

that

ILM

waived,

C(l)

clause.

rights

terminate

the waiver of

Section

law

contesting

Agreement

argues

2-3.
is

the

its

its

morality

at

R&R,

of

Bernsen's

waived

by

of

matter

finding

Bernsen

Id.

support

the

1.

question.

to

to

to

the

R&R Recommendation

not

right

a

morality

provision

its

violations

has

Obj.

anti-waiver

waived

objects

as

to

terminate

A.

Bernsen

Objection

objection

finding

rights

forth below,

Bernsen's

ILM's
S.

Ry.

As
anti-

Resp.

1.

Co.,

278

Va.

444

(2009),

law,

an

from

the

enforcing

magistrate

anti-waiver

the

provision

terms

done so previously."
case

similarly

concluded

prior

to

his

an

terms

B.

preclude

agreement

even

though

defendant

it

had

not

Given that the Agreement in this

because

knew

does

of

the

Virginia

ILM

not

give

of

rise

the Agreement."

the

magistrate

Bernsen's
to

a

conduct

waiver

of

its

Id.

Waiver of an Anti-Waiver Provision

"is

legal

under

provision,

termination

Waiver

the

not

that,

anti-waiver

"simply

rights under the

known

of

stated

"did

R&R 10.2

has

judge

judge

the

right.

voluntary,

It

has

two

intentional

essential

abandonment

elements:

(1)

of

a

knowledge

2 The court does not find Virginia Electric to be controlling on
the

issue

the

striking
of

waiver

an

&

Co.,

address

waiver.
Supreme

Court

provision

contract
of

As
had

of

in

a

would
fact."

issue,

Id.

had

Id.

and

developed

In

time,

to

that

court

only

notice

forward.

a

is
of

a

would

calculated

at

prove

533.

acts,

J.,

its
from

Virginia
to

for

prospectively
contractual
time

trier
is

is

instant

right

Thus,

defense

Electric

a

the

course

Electric

"the

estoppel

the

the

in

or

dissenting).

in

waiver

contractual

damages

non-waiver

a

viable

contained

from

by

a

affirmative

Southern

precluded

one

Virginia

of

Virginia

waive

judicial

basis

defense

the

conduct,

plaintiff

viable

reassert
522,

the

"by

case,

a

fact.

Norfolk

Id.

to

factual

assert

it

as

the

if

Court

alleged

may

(Koontz,

the

instant

trier

on

defendant

plaintiff

476-77

waiver

the

failing

such

party

Virginia

Supreme

defense

had

ruling

elements

case."

striking

waiver

"a

chance

the

the

including

estoppel,

thus

for

at

for

"the

Virginia

highlighted,

plaintiff

because

this

Electric,

court's

because

in
The

grounds

Virginia

circuit

waiver

466.

found

the

the

distinguishable

after

not

case,"

judicial
have

at

dissent

contract

this

of

In

a

established

Va.

the

defense,

dealing."

absent

were

case.

upheld

defense

278

estoppel,

affirmative

instant

alternative

Id.

judicial

the

Court

estoppel

Power

not

in

Supreme

affirmative

judicial

Elec.
did

of

Virginia

not

an

to

be

otherwise
case,

period

advised
right,

of

of

and

as,

of
the
the

prospective

of

the

intent

facts
to

basic

to

relinquish

S.E.2d 722, 725

the

exercise

that

(Va.

of

right."

1989).3

the

right,

Bergmueller

(2)

the

Minnick,

v.

and

383

"Waiver need not be express: it may

be inferred from the conduct of the waiving party."
Co.

v.

AT&T

17432,

Life

at

Comm'cns,

*13

Ins.

Inc.,

(4th Cir.

Soc'y v.

No.

92-2050,

13,

1993)

July

Grant,

38

S.E.2d

existence of an anti-waiver clause
an

intent

however,

not

themselves
shown
World,

38

conduct,
S.E.2d

Here,

Obj.

to
3.

the

rights

to waiver."
acts,

decision

as

right.

or

a

to be

at

conduct

a waiver of its
R&R 10,
is
thus
whether a genuine

World

1946)).

{Va.

contract

rights

under

Id.

the

at

course

to

no

issue

The

is

under

'no

*14.
of

dispute

evidence of

the

contract;

"[l]ike

waiver'

all

clause

are

Such waiver

dealing."

to

the

prior

to

the
turns

ILM's

R&R

that

"for months,

terminate

Bernsen

in

454

LEXIS

can be

Woodmen

of

454.

incidents

statement

intent.

the

App.

of

necessarily control," because,

appears

dispute

450,

the

U.S.

(citing Woodmen

in a

The question of waiver thus

contractual

Bernsen's

at

there

alleged

material

3 The

rights,

subject

"by

prior

relinquish

"it does not

contractual

of the

to

1993

Perry Enq'g

to

that

his

and even

to

Bernsen's
is a

relinquish

pieces

because

termination does

some

years,"

on whether there

three

"simply

knew of

Agreement.

intent

points

ILM

not

of

ILM

give

its

evidence

knew

rise

of
to

rights
under
the
terms
of
the Agreement,"
insufficient;
the
court
must
then
examine
dispute of material fact exists as to ILM's

as

creating

ILM

a

jury

continued

potentially
under
of

the

the

its

evidence,

that

the

entirely

The
ILM's

and

five

contract's
conduct

finds

courts
a

provision,

ILM

is

both

use

of

be

it

of

as

a

party

who

Bernsen

the

benefit

right
have

clause

to

in

with

notwithstanding

an

contest

.

.

with
The

its

conduct

plausible.
under

of

exercising

under

a

contract

also

an

can

affirmative

enforce
that

the

evidence

anti-waiver

a

intent

of

the

course

of

by

to

morality

repeated

its

However,

R&R

is

ILM

clause.

declination

intent

provision.

the

Bernsen's

non-waiver.

4-6,

are

3.

benefits

enjoyment

its

rights

payment

party

stating

violative

found

contract

not

potentially

subsequently

a

a

of

and

see

similarly

the

with

right

consistent

collecting

characterizations

of

clause,

.

Resp.

enjoyment

incidents

does

knows

continued

payment,

by

consistent

ILM's

the

pay

insufficient,

Bernsen,

consistent

use,

ILM

non-waiver.

parties'

contractual
of

4.

[after

reap

to

entirely

right

with

continued

entirely

Other

enforce

characterizes

by

morality

its

at

"(1)

to

advertisements

separate

waive

continued

its
Id.

waive:

years

in

customers."

may

bargained-for

after

ILM

non-waiver provision."

continued

continuation

(2)

two

continued

consistent

endorsement

almost

to

ILM

but

court

Agreement,

for

intent

(3)

contractual

protected by a

ILM's

and

"conduct

bargained-for

Bernsen

to

Bernsen

of

from

as

conduct];

Agreement;

this

is

use

violative

use

payments

to

question

to

waive
See

to
the

Perry

Eng'g

Co.,

1993

from

AT&T's

submitted

the

after

can

38

be

Even

S.E.2d

Response

makes

1987

late

agreement

this

reasonable

Viewing

use

a

acts,

Olga's

LEXIS

2205,

by

a

a

may

at

waive

persistent

intent

course
its

Kitchen
(6th

a

to

waive

generally Woodmen

of

*12

infer

adjustments

intended

party's

or

See

inferences

the

could
of

in

the
in

Plumbing

evidence
find

that

of

to

dealing").

position
v.

Papo,

Cir.

Feb.

in

its

No.

85-

16,

in

1987)

clause

of

course

conduct

of

waive

^nonwaiver'

ILM's

respect

that

convincing

burden.

favor

in
the

that

ILM's

judge's

of

the

light,

the

of

intent

the

to

its

Similarly,

evidence,"

function

3.

is

and

that

However,

not

"at

himself
8

court

after

in

a

accepting

Reeves
(2000).

concludes

in

"all

that

payment

the

a

and

incidents

Agreement

provision

with

other courts have

demonstrated by "clear

Bernsen
to

150

repeated

numerous

draw

party."

133,

anti-waiver

the

must

continued

clause

implied waiver must be

Resp.

U.S.

ILM's

morality

waive

court

non-moving
530

endorsement

of

the

Inc.,

evidence

to that clause.4

ILM argues

litigation,

Prods.,

Bernsen's

demonstrate

the

that

support

violative

and

ILM

it

See

in

potentially

4

cases.").

conduct,

lessor

stage

Sanderson

jury

price

that

could

payments.").

At

v.

("One

elapsed

(holding

by

App.
("A

all

*14

approving

of

at

point.

this

(unpublished)

had

454

"by

17432,

practice

in

cited

U.S.

LEXIS

days

at

evidenced
case

lease

ten

deadline

the

1591,

App.

consistent

ten-day

World,

U.S.

cannot

summary

weigh

meet

this

judgment

stage

the

evidence

and

held

that

waiver,

even

question

best

left

Standard

Life

Ins.

proof

waiver

see

of

also

itself

occurred

the

Co.,

Given

a

contradictory
relates

to

the

Bernsen's

weight
any

that

the

court

and

entitled
DENIES

alleged

and

court,

having

determine
is

a

reviewed

the

genuine

Drawing

having

all

finds

that

issue

of

truth
issue

of

reasonable
Bernsen

intent

to

be

instructed

will

need

to

determine

Motion

for

and

fact") ;
869,

is

872

that

contract,

by

an
is

of

modification

or

course

has

potentially

a

valid

evidence

court

matter

Summary

and

as

it

declines

to

of

law.

Judgment

As

as

to

clause.

made

but

a

the

whether

to

Objection
cte

determine

in

sufficient

genuine

clear

issue

and

Bernsen's

to

R&R,
with

whether

477

Bernsen's

the

findings

novo

Anderson,

presented

on

the

the

as

Bernsen's

matter

it

F.2d

that

Conclusion

inferences

has

will

waiver,

trial."

make,

jury

level.

the

of

...

submitted

judgment

record

for

two

the

thus

examined

the

of

the morality

Ill.
The

of

to

of

645

in

waiver

(noting

a

factfinder.").

ILM's

breach

terra

Jefferson

trier

modification

recognition

intent,

the

authority

such

interpretations

is

of

for

usually

v.

(1982)

Shelton,

other

whether
for

v.

is

Assocs.

485

question

Corp.

provision,

Link

479,

waiver or

court's

ILM

See

Va.

a

like

to

ILM's

that

223

Credit

question

the

anti-waiver

jury.

"usually

clause,

and

is

an

("[T]he

subject

performance

such,

is

1981)

'anti-waiver'

find

to

Westinghouse

Cir.

(10th

of

U.S.

favor,

the

evidence

for

evidence

249.
court

on

the

as

the

standard

and

trial,

convincing

there

at

rises

to

that

respect

to

approve

the

and

the

findings

C(2]-(5)

of

Agreement

and

The

court

does

set

forth

law

on

as

portion

in

the

discussed

part

that

and

the

has

hereby

modify

DENIED

court

the

DENIES

copy

R&R,

of

its

clause

in

A

the

claim.

recommendations

concerning

Motion

part.
the

a

under

The

to

rights
in

ILM's

Summary

court

Agreement

declines
its

for

conclusion
the

of

Agreement,

find

as

under

dispute,

motion

as

finds

a

namely
to

and

that

Order

on

claim.
to

counsel

The

Clerk

for

ILM's

facts

claim

all

a

is

morality
of

law

intent
alleged

remain

is

unjust

DIRECTED

of

law

clause;
that

ILM

because
to

a

waive.

breach
in

Finally,
for

GRANTED

matter

Agreement,

waiver.

Bernsen's

a

Bernsen's

conduct

motion

as

matter

the

material

ILM's

Judgment

includes

because

this

and

Sections

enrichment

and

rights

adopt

in

morality

findings

clause,

DISMISSES
of

the

forth

unjust

Bernsen's

concerning

and

in

remains

morality

GRANTS

of

the

hereby

set

the

Bernsen's

waiver

of

court

fact

The

C(l)

ILM's

waived

material

does

above.

the

not

concerning
of

language

however,

R&R,

potential

to,

recommendations

dismissal

Accordingly,

in

and

Section

ILM's

objected

of

dispute

the

court

enrichment,
to

forward

parties.

([
Rebecca Beach Smith

it is so ordered.

Chief

United States District Judge
REBECCA

CHIEF

Norfolk,
August

Virginia
^a

,

2012

10

BEACH

UNITED

SMITH

STATES

DISTRICT

JUDGE

a