FOrtran Group International, Inc. v. Ricoh Americas Corporation , 543 F. App'x 934 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-15889 Date Filed: 11/01/2013 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-15889
Non-Argument Calendar
D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cv-01602-TBM
FORTRAN GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TENET HOSPITALS LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants-Cross Claimants,
RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION,
d.b.a. Ricoh USA,
Defendant-Cross Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 1, 2013)
Before HULL, WILSON, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-15889 Date Filed: 11/01/2013 Page: 2 of 7
After a bench trial in this civil diversity case, Plaintiff-Appellant Fortran
Group International, Inc. (“Fortran”) appeals the district court’s entry of final
judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Ricoh Americas Corp. (“Ricoh”) on
Fortran’s state law claims for breach of contract and tortious interference in
Fortran’s business relationship. After reviewing the record and briefs, we find no
reversible error in the district court’s entry of final judgment in favor of Defendant-
Appellee Ricoh.
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves lease agreements for copier equipment. Plaintiff Fortran
provides third-party leasing and financing of equipment, including photocopiers
and other business assets. Defendant Ricoh manufactures and sells copiers and
copier equipment.
Tenet Hospitals Limited (“Tenet”), who is not a party to this appeal, decided
to obtain new photocopier equipment (the “Copiers”). Tenet chose Defendant
Ricoh to supply the Copiers. Because Tenet had poor credit, Ricoh searched for a
leasing company to fund the transaction with Tenet. Ultimately, Ricoh brought
Plaintiff Fortran into the discussions concerning Tenet’s lease of the Copiers. As
part of those discussions, Defendant Ricoh and Plaintiff Fortran entered into an
agreement, wherein Ricoh agreed not to circumvent Fortran with respect to “this
opportunity” (the “Non-Circumvention Agreement”).
2
Case: 12-15889 Date Filed: 11/01/2013 Page: 3 of 7
Ultimately, Plaintiff Fortran purchased the Copiers directly from Defendant
Ricoh, and Tenet then leased the Copiers from Fortran (the “Lease”). The initial
Lease term was five years. The Lease provided Fortran with a right of first refusal
on any lease renewal.
Prior to the Lease’s expiration, Tenet entered into a Settlement Agreement
with Fortran to buyout and terminate Tenet’s Lease. Thus, Tenet’s Lease with
Fortran was settled between Tenet and Fortran. There is no dispute here about that
Lease. The dispute here is over Tenet’s future leasing of copiers.
After entering into the Settlement Agreement with Fortran, Tenet entered
into a new lease directly with Ricoh, the copier manufacturer.
Because Defendant Ricoh actively pursued Tenet’s copier equipment needs
before Plaintiff Fortran’s Lease with Tenet actually expired, Fortran sued Ricoh for
(1) breach of the Non-Circumvention Agreement and (2) tortious interference in
the business relationship between Fortran and Tenet.
After the district court denied the parties cross-motions for summary
judgment, the parties stipulated to a nonjury trial before a magistrate judge.
Following a four-day trial, and after considering the parties’ post-trial memoranda,
3
Case: 12-15889 Date Filed: 11/01/2013 Page: 4 of 7
the district court 1 found in Defendant Ricoh’s favor on both of Plaintiff Fortran’s
claims. 2 In a thorough and well-reasoned order, the district court extensively
outlined its factual findings, its basis for crediting and discrediting certain evidence
and testimony, and how its factual findings supported its ultimate conclusions.
With regards to Plaintiff Fortran’s breach of contract claim against
Defendant Ricoh relating to the Non-Circumvention Agreement, the district court
found that those parties had limited that agreement to “this opportunity,” and, thus,
the Non-Circumvention Agreement applied only to the initial Lease agreement
between Fortran and Tenet. The court found that the Non-Circumvention
Agreement did not apply to future opportunities to lease Copiers to Tenet.
Consequently, the district court found that Fortran did not breach the Non-
Circumvention Agreement when it pursued future business opportunities with
Tenet. The district court also stated that, even if Defendant Ricoh had breached
the Non-Circumvention Agreement, Plaintiff Fortran failed to show damages
beyond a speculative level.
With regards to Plaintiff Fortran’s tortious interference claim against
Defendant Ricoh, the district court found, inter alia, that (1) Defendant Ricoh did
1
While the magistrate judge actually made the rulings, the magistrate judge, by consent,
was acting as the district court, and, thus, we do not distinguish between them.
2
The district court also made findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding an
unrelated claim by Plaintiff Fortran against Tenet about which Fortran does not appeal.
4
Case: 12-15889 Date Filed: 11/01/2013 Page: 5 of 7
not interfere with Fortran’s right of first refusal and (2) Defendant Ricoh’s
obvious, and admitted, efforts to compete for Tenet’s future copier-leasing
business was not the legal cause of Tenet’s decision not to enter a new lease of the
Copiers from Fortran. The district court found that Tenet declined to do future
business with Fortran because (1) Tenet grew “tired” of Fortran’s “constant
inquiries” and (2) Tenet found Fortran’s proposals for future business
unacceptable. Consequently, the district court found that Fortran did not prove all
elements necessary to its tortious interference claim.
After losing in this bench trial, Plaintiff Fortran appeals the district court’s
final judgment entered in favor of Defendant Ricoh.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Fortran raised these four claims:
1. Whether the district court erred in finding that Ricoh did not
tortuously interfere with Fortran’s right of first refusal.
2. Whether the district court erred in finding that Fortran waived its
claim for tortious interference.
3. Whether Fortran proved its damages.
4. Whether the district court’s order and final judgment is inconsistent
with the court’s prior summary judgment ruling.3
3
We review the district courts findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard.
Osmose, Inc. v. Viance, LLC, 612 F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2010). A finding of fact is clearly
5
Case: 12-15889 Date Filed: 11/01/2013 Page: 6 of 7
Fortran’s first three claims on appeal lack merit for the reasons stated in the
district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order outlining its findings of fact and
conclusions of law. The district court provided factual bases for all of its findings
and conclusions. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we cannot say
that any of the court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous. To the contrary, the
evidence amply supports them. Moreover, Fortran has not shown any reversible
error in the district court’s legal conclusions based on its factual findings.
Fortran’s fourth claim on appeal lacks merit because the district court had
the power to reconsider, revise, alter, or amend its summary judgment order prior
to entering the final judgment. See Harper v. Lawrence Cnty., Ala., 592 F.3d
1227, 1231 (11th Cir. 2010) (“It is permissible for a district court to rescind its own
interlocutory order.”); Hardin v. Hayes, 52 F.3d 934, 938 (11th Cir. 1995) (stating
that a district court may reconsider and amend interlocutory orders at any time
before final judgment). As noted above, the district court’s factual findings were
not clearly erroneous, and the court reached proper legal conclusions based on its
findings. Therefore, even assuming (without deciding) that the district court’s
erroneous only when “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). We review de novo the district court’s conclusions of law.
Id.
6
Case: 12-15889 Date Filed: 11/01/2013 Page: 7 of 7
summary judgment order was inconsistent with its final judgment, we conclude
that Fortran has not shown reversible error due to that fact.
For all the above reasons, we affirm the district court’s final judgment in
favor of Defendant Ricoh on the claims of Plaintiff Fortran.
AFFIRMED.
7