Mortgage Now, Inc. v. Guaranteed Home MOrtgage Company, Inc. , 545 F. App'x 809 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-15499 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15499
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 3:09-00080-MCR-CJK
MORTGAGE NOW, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUARANTEED HOME MORTGAGE
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 21, 2013)
Before PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, * Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Jane A. Restani, United States Court of International Trade Judge, sitting by
designation.
Case: 12-15499 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 2 of 8
Appellant Guaranteed Home Mortgage Company, Inc. (Guaranteed), and
Appellee Mortgage Now, Inc. (MNI) are competing mortgage companies. In
February 2009, MNI’s Destin, Florida, branch manager, Bryan Stone, left MNI’s
employment to work for Guaranteed, taking 12 MNI employees with him. MNI
brought a lawsuit alleging that Guaranteed and former employees Stone and Phillip
Heppding engaged in tortious and disloyal conduct which caused irreparable harm
and damages for MNI. 1 Specifically, MNI alleged that while Stone and Heppding
were still employees of MNI, they solicited MNI employees and customers in
anticipation of their employment with Guaranteed, and that Guaranteed and Stone
conspired to interfere with MNI’s business relations.
Following a six-day bench trial, the district court concluded that Stone and
Guaranteed tortiously interfered with MNI’s business relationships and joined in a
civil conspiracy together for this purpose. The district court then awarded MNI
$280,261.44 in lost profit damages. On appeal, Guaranteed argues the district
court erred in (1) concluding it and Stone conspired to intentionally interfere with
MNI’s business relations; (2) finding Guaranteed’s conduct proximately caused
MNI’s reduced loan production, and (3) awarding MNI lost profit damages. After
1
Stone and Heppding are not involved in this appeal.
2
Case: 12-15499 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 3 of 8
review 2 of the record and the parties’ briefs, as well as the benefit of oral argument,
we affirm the district court’s well-reasoned order.
I. CONSPIRACY TO INTENTIONALLY INTERFERE IN BUSINESS
RELATIONS
Guaranteed contends the district court erred in determining that MNI proved
all the elements of its claim for intentional interference with business relations
under Florida law. Guaranteed first asserts the district court misstated the elements
of the tort. Under Florida law,
[t]he elements of tortious interference with a business relationship are
(1) The existence of a business relationship . . . (2) knowledge of the
relationship on the part of the defendant; (3) an intentional and
unjustified interference with the relationship by the defendant; and
(4) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the breach of the relationship.
Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. 1995)
(quotation omitted). In paraphrasing this standard, the district court stated the
fourth element as “that the defendants’ interference resulted in damages to the
plaintiff.” Even assuming the district court should have used the word “breach” in
the standard (as Guaranteed argues), the district court’s findings support that
Guaranteed’s conduct resulted in a breach of relationship between MNI and its
employees and customers.
2
On appeal following a bench trial, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de
novo and its factual findings for clear error. Mitchell v. Hillsborough County, 468 F.3d 1276,
1282 (11th Cir. 2006).
3
Case: 12-15499 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 4 of 8
Guaranteed next argues that its actions were not the proximate cause of
employees leaving MNI. Guaranteed asserts there could be no interference with
MNI’s employees because they were terminable at will. Florida law allows an
action when a party interferes with a contract terminable at will. G.M. Brod & Co.
v. U.S. Home Corp., 759 F.2d 1526, 1534 (11th Cir. 1985). Thus, the employees’
at-will status does not preclude an intentional interference with contractual
business relations action.
Guaranteed contends that because the employees were already predisposed
to leaving MNI, it cannot be liable for inducing a breach of the relationship, and
that the district court provided too lax of a standard for proximate cause. The third
element of the tort of intentional interference with business relations is the
causation element. Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Interstate Chem., Inc., 16 So. 3d
836, 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). “Causation requires a plaintiff to prove that the
defendant manifested a specific intent to interfere with the business relationship.
No liability will attach unless it is established that the defendant intended to
procure a breach . . . .” Id. (quotation omitted). Further, if one party to a contract
is already predisposed to breach, then the third party’s actions cannot have induced
the breach. Farah v. Canada, 740 So. 2d 560, 561 (5th DCA 1999).
The evidence presented at trial supports the district court’s conclusion that
Guaranteed’s and Stone’s actions intended to procure a breach of the employees’
4
Case: 12-15499 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 5 of 8
relationships with MNI. The district court did not provide too lax a standard for
proximate cause, and linked the conduct of Guaranteed’s business development
manager, Lou Tesoriero, to the breach of the employees’ relationships with MNI.
The evidence supports that Tesoriero and Stone intended to jump start the new
Destin Guaranteed office with experienced MNI employees and ready-made
business pipelines, and they acted on this agreement by signing up employees
while they were still employed with MNI and encouraging those employees to take
actions inconsistent with their duties toward MNI.
As to the employees being predisposed to leaving MNI, the record
sufficiently shows that the employees were influenced by Stone’s negative
comments about MNI and its business, which generated fear, and by the prospect
of having a ready-made office and loan pipeline at Guaranteed when they left
MNI. Additionally, the fact that some of the employees were actually fired by
MNI does not affect the proximate cause finding because the record supports that
these terminations would not have occurred without Stone’s and Guaranteed’s
actions. The employees’ relationships with MNI were breached before their
termination date as many of them were already considered employees of
Guaranteed.
5
Case: 12-15499 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 6 of 8
II. PROXIMATE CAUSE OF REDUCED LOAN PRODUCTION
Guaranteed asserts that the district court engaged in “pure speculation” that
Guaranteed’s and Stone’s actions resulted in MNI-Destin’s reduced loan
production. Florida law requires more than “speculation” to show the defendant’s
conduct resulted in plaintiff’s damages. See Reaves v. Armstrong World Indus.,
Inc., 569 So. 2d 1307, 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
The district court did not engage in mere speculation to conclude that
Guaranteed’s actions resulted in reduced loan production. The evidence supports
that the employees’ discontent, lack of productivity, and redirected energy toward
Guaranteed while they were still employed by MNI in February 2009, combined
with the mass exodus of nearly half of MNI-Destin’s staff reduced productivity in
February through April 2009.
III. DAMAGES
Guaranteed contends the district court erred in allowing lost profits to be
awarded under a relaxed standard, and that MNI’s damages were not proven with
specificity.
When a party seeks lost future profits, the party must prove that the lost
profits were a direct result of the defendant’s actions and that the amount of the
lost profits can be established with reasonable certainty. James Crystal Licenses,
6
Case: 12-15499 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 7 of 8
LLC v. Infinity Radio, Inc., 43 So. 3d 68, 74 (4th DCA 2010). As to proving the
amount of damages, Florida law provides:
Difficulty in proving damages or uncertainty as to the amount will not
prevent recovery as long as it is clear that substantial (rather than
merely nominal) damages were suffered as a result of the wrong, and
the competent evidence is sufficient to satisfy the mind of a prudent,
impartial person as to the amount. However, an award of lost profits
cannot be based on mere speculation and conjecture.
Id.MNI compared Destin closings for the months of November 2008 through
January 2009 with February through April 2009. The average for the preceding
three months was 33 loans closed per month, and an average of 17 loans per month
closed in the subsequent three months. Thus, the average loan closing totals were
down by 16 closings per month. Exhibits in evidence and the testimony of James
Marchese established the average profit per loan was $5,838.78. This totaled lost
profits damages to MNI at $280,261.44, with 16 lost closings per month,
multiplied by the average profit per loan at $5,838.78. The evidence presented is
sufficient to satisfy the mind of a prudent, impartial person as to the amount of lost
profits.3
3
While Guaranteed argues on appeal that certain overhead expenses were not deducted
from this calculation, Guaranteed did not make this argument before the district court. Thus, we
do not address this argument. See Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324,
1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining we have “repeatedly held that an issue not raised in the district
court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court” (quotation
omitted)).
7
Case: 12-15499 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 8 of 8
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Guaranteed and
Stone conspired to intentionally interfere in MNI’s contractual business relations
and award of $280,261.44 4 in lost profit damages.
AFFIRMED.
4
The district court’s damages award totaled $339,468.97 with the inclusion of
prejudgment interest.
8