Wounded Warrior Project, Inc. v. Lotsa Helping Hands, Inc. , 649 F. App'x 732 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-12195 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 1 of 11
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
Nos. 15-12195 & 15-12854
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No.3:14-cv-00145-HES-MCR
WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT, INC.,
a Virginia nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LOTSA HELPING HANDS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 3, 2016)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12195 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 2 of 11
Lotsa Helping Hands, Inc. (“LHH”), appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Wounded Warrior Project, Inc. (“WWP”). WWP’s
initial complaint against LHH alleged a claim for breach of contract arising from
LHH’s refusal to return a $250,000 contractual payment. In the alternative,
WWP’s complaint asserted claims for promissory estoppel and failure to pay on an
open account.1
We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment.
Craig v. Floyd Cty., Ga., 643 F.3d 1306, 1309 (11th Cir. 2011). Summary
judgment is appropriate when, viewing all of the evidence and drawing all
inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine factual dispute exists
if a jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Wilson v. B/E
Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).
In June 2010, WWP hired LHH to create a web-based platform that could
enable visitors to WWP’s website to form private communities of individuals
providing assistance to military veterans. The “My Care Crew,” as it came to be
called, was to focus on rallying individuals around one military veteran or family.
1
LHH’s notice of appeal also states that it intended to appeal the district court’s order
granting WWP’s motion for costs. In its opening brief, however, LHH did not address the
district court’s order awarding costs, so it has abandoned the issue on appeal. Ramirez v. Sec’y,
U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 686 F.3d 1239, 1249 (11th Cir. 2012).
2
Case: 15-12195 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 3 of 11
In March 2011, LLH approached WWP with a project proposal to expand the “My
Care Crew” web-based tool to create public communities that would be able to
provide support for multiple military veterans and families, while expanding the
reach of the program throughout the United States.
While talks and negotiations began in March 2011, the parties were not
immediately able to finalize an agreement on the joint venture. In order that LHH
could begin building the web-based tool without further delay, WWP and LHH
executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) on September 30, 2011.
The MOU was meant to memorialize certain terms and conditions that would
eventually be incorporated into the anticipated agreement (the “Agreement”). The
MOU required WWP to pay LHH $250,000 “for LHH’s provision of the [web-
based tool].” The MOU cautioned that, “In the event the parties are unable to
finalize an Agreement within the term specified . . . , LHH shall return to WPP any
Payment made hereunder.” Under the terms of the MOU, it was to expire when
the Agreement was finalized but in no case later than 90 days after the execution of
the MOU, or on December 29, 2011.
December 29, 2011, arrived and the parties had not yet finalized the
Agreement. That same day, WWP and LHH mutually agreed, by email
correspondence, to extend the term of the MOU to January 15, 2012.
3
Case: 15-12195 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 4 of 11
When January 15, 2012 arrived, however, the parties were once again unable
to finalize the Agreement by the deadline. Neither WWP nor LHH sought an
extension or raised the issue of the expired deadline. Despite the lapse,
negotiations continued past the January 15, 2012, deadline until June 15, 2012,
when WWP sent a letter to LHH terminating the negotiations and demanding
return of the $250,000 payment pursuant to the MOU. LHH refused to return the
payment. 2
The MOU stated, and the parties agree, that the governing law for claims
initiated by WWP is the law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Our review
is therefore governed by Massachusetts state law. 3
The plain contractual language of the MOU contemplates two outcomes:
either (1) the parties reach an agreement within 90 days of the execution of the
MOU and LHH keeps the $250,000 payment as consideration for producing the
web-based tool, or (2) the parties fail to reach an agreement within 90 days, at
which point LHH returns the $250,000 payment. Yet, notwithstanding the MOU’s
language, both WWP and LHH agree that the December 29, 2012, email
correspondence memorialized a mutual agreement to extend the MOU’s deadline
until January 15, 2012. Under Massachusetts law, parties to a written contract may
2
LHH did return $11,389.00 to WWP, which accounts for the district court’s award of
$238,611.00.
3
Neither party alleges that the contract is a contract for the sale of goods subject to the
UCC as adopted by Massachusetts.
4
Case: 15-12195 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 5 of 11
modify that contract by written instrument, as WWP and LHH have done here.
See Schinkel v. Maxi-Holding, Inc., 565 N.E.2d 1219, 1223 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991)
(explaining that “[t]here is authority for treating . . . a cover letter amendment,
accepted by the other party, as effecting a modification of the written contract”).
The parties’ dispute centers on whether the parties’ statements or actions after
January 15, 2012 extended the deadline indefinitely, whether WWP waived the
deadline and its right to recoup the payment, or whether WWP should be equitably
estopped from relying on the January 15, 2012, deadline to recover payment.
In Massachusetts, the interpretation of a contract is a question of law for the
court. Eigerman v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 877 N.E.2d 1258, 1263 (Mass. 2007). A
reviewing court construes the terms of a contract to give its plain language and
terms their usual and ordinary meaning. S. Union Co. v. Dep’t of Pub. Utilities,
941 N.E.2d 633, 640 (Mass. 2011).
It is, however, “a settled principle of law that ‘[t]he mode of performance
required by a written contract may be varied by a subsequent oral agreement based
upon a valid consideration.’” Cambridgeport Sav. Bank v. Boersner, 597 N.E.2d
1017, 1021 (Mass. 1992) (citation omitted). Such oral modifications “may be
express or implied.” Cochran v. Quest Software, Inc., 328 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2003)
(citing Rogers v. Rogers & Brother, 1 N.E. 122, 122-23 (Mass. 1885)).
5
Case: 15-12195 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 6 of 11
Typically, the question of whether the parties have agreed to modify a
written contract is one of fact. L.W. Severance & Sons, Inc. v. Angley, 125 N.E.2d
415, 419 (Mass. 1955). But “[t]he evidence of a subsequent oral modification
must be of sufficient force to overcome the presumption that the integrated and
complete agreement . . . expresses the intent of the parties.” Boersner, 597 N.E.2d
at 1022. If such evidence is not offered, summary judgment is appropriate. See
D’Attanasio v. Marini, 989 N.E.2d 934, 934 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013).
In the instant case, little evidence exists in the record that the parties
explicitly agreed to extend the deadline indefinitely. 4 Instead, LHH relies
primarily on WWP’s implied acceptance of such a modification and points to two
facts in support: (1) the continuation of negotiations after January 15, 2012, and (2)
WWP’s positive comments about LHH’s work between January 15, 2012, and
June 15, 2012, the date WWP sent notice of cancellation.
While this evidence establishes an ongoing relationship between the parties,
“there is no evidence that [LHH] proposed, or the parties negotiated, new terms or
4
Although LHH states that a question exists as to whether WWP explicitly agreed to
extend the deadline indefinitely, the evidence LHH relies on for this contention does not support
that position. LHH cites to the testimony of WWP’s outside counsel, Anthony Scioli, where he
stated that “to [his] knowledge” the extension “may have just been done verbally.” LHH does
not account for Scioli’s later testimony where he stated that he was unaware of the December 29,
2012, emails extending the deadline to January 15, 2012. LHH then cites to WWP’s CEO
Steven Nardizzi’s testimony for the proposition that there was no certain date by which the
Agreement had to be finalized. But again, LHH’s citation disregards Nardizzi’s later testimony
that he was unaware of the initial written extension. When contextualized, neither piece of
testimony supports a finding that the deadline had been explicitly extended.
6
Case: 15-12195 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 7 of 11
the details of a modified agreement, [or] . . . that [WWP] agreed to release” LHH
from its duty under the MOU to return the payment. Baynorth Realty Fund VI, LP
v. Wickline, 26 N.E.3d 752, *1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). While oral modifications
may be implied, Massachusetts law requires that mutuality or acceptance of such
modifications be “unequivocal.” Baynorth Realty Fund VI, LP v. Wickline, 26
N.E.3d 752, *1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015) (citing First Pa. Mort. Trust v. Dorchester
Sav. Bank, 481 N.E.2d 1132, 1139 (Mass. 1985)). None of the statements or
actions attributed to WWP or LHH, individually or taken together, represent an
unequivocal showing of negotiation between the parties, a valid offer for and
acceptance of an oral modification, or mutual agreement extending the deadline
indefinitely.
Further, whether or not the continued negotiations and positive feedback are
evidence of WWP’s desire to modify the agreement, LHH does not state what
consideration it gave WWP in exchange for agreeing to what would otherwise be
an indefinite extension. See D’Attanasio, 989 N.E.2d at 934. Massachusetts law is
clear that while an oral modification “may be express or implied[,] . . . [i]n either
event . . . the modification must be supported by consideration.” Cochran v. Quest
Software, Inc., 328 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2003) (interpreting Massachusetts state law)
(citing Rogers v. Rogers & Brother, 1 N.E. 122, 122-23 (Mass. 1885)).
7
Case: 15-12195 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 8 of 11
LHH’s argument that WWP waived its right under the MOU to receive
repayment also suffers from both these critical defects.5 “Massachusetts common
law defines waiver as the ‘intentional relinquishment of a known right.’” Dynamic
Mach. Works, Inc. v. Mach. & Elec. Consultants, Inc., 831 N.E.2d 875, 879 (Mass.
2005) (citation omitted). And it requires “[a] waiver implied by a person’s
conduct,” such as that suggested here, to “be unequivocal . . . allow[ing] room for
no other explanation of the conduct of the person who allegedly is waiving a
contractual right.” Boston Helicopter Charter, Inc. v. Agusta Aviation Corp., 767
F. Supp. 363, 372 (D. Mass. 1991) (interpreting Massachusetts state law). LHH
does not point to any facts suggesting as much. Nor does LHH identify what
consideration it offered in return for WWP’s waiver of rights. See Berenson v.
French, 159 N.E. 909, 911 (Mass. 1928) (identifying defendant’s burden to prove
“that the plaintiff had waived his right to demand and receive a release from the
defendant and that the waiver was based on good consideration”); Boston
Helicopter Charter, Inc., 767 F. Supp. at 372.
Finally, LHH argues, in the alternative, that WWP should be equitably
estopped from recovering the payment. LHH alleges that it relied on (1) the
5
WWP argues that LHH is precluded from raising the issue of waiver on appeal because
it did not raise it before the district court. Although LHH did not sufficiently brief its waiver
position before the district court, referencing waiver only in its “Relevant Factual Background”
section and only once, it appears that the district court may have understood and considered
LHH’s waiver argument.
8
Case: 15-12195 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 9 of 11
continued negotiations and (2) the lack of a firm deadline to “continue[] to develop
and test the project for five (5) months after January 15, 2012.”
Under Massachusetts law, “[t]o establish estoppel, a party must show (1) a
representation intended to induce reliance on the part of a person to whom the
representation is made; (2) an act or omission by that person in reasonable reliance
on the representation; and (3) detriment as a consequence of the act or omission.”
Licata v. GGNSC Malden Dexter LLC, 2 N.E.3d 840, 848 (Mass. 2014). “All of
the elements of estoppel must be present and the party asserting the estoppel theory
has a heavy burden to prove that all three elements are present.” Clickner v.
Lowell, 663 N.E.2d 852 (Mass. 1996) (alteration and citation omitted).
Despite LHH’s argument that “the essence of the [equitable estoppel]
argument is contained in [its] response,” LHH discernibly raises this argument for
the first time on appeal. While LHH’s equitable estoppel argument fails for that
reason alone, Ramirez v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 686 F.3d 1239, 1249 (11th
Cir. 2012), its argument fails on the merits as well. To begin with, LHH does not
point to “a representation” WWP made with the intent that it cause LHH to rely on
that representation. Nor does LHH state how its reliance on continued negotiations
and positive feedback was reasonable in light of LHH’s knowledge of the lapsed
deadline and the repayment requirement it triggered, the parties’ initial two-week
9
Case: 15-12195 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 10 of 11
extension suggesting a desire to expediently finalize the Agreement, and the term
making the $250,000 payment contingent on reaching a final Agreement.
Further, although LHH argues before the Court that it worked for 5 months
after the January 15, 2012, deadline, the evidence of detriment in the record is not
so clear. For example, LHH states that “[b]y June 15, 2012, LHH had spent more
than 300 hours over a time period of approximately 9 months finalizing the
business opportunity” and that “[o]ver the same period of time, LHH’s legal
counsel had also expended countless hours to finalize the definitive agreement.”
But LHH does not specify what portion of that time and effort, and thus what
detriment, is attributable to WWP’s alleged inducement after the January 15, 2012,
deadline. LHH assumed the risk that if the Agreement was not finalized by the
deadline it ultimately might not be compensated for work done during the
negotiation period. LHH could have easily put forth evidence, such as its
employees’ timesheets or its attorney’s billing statements, that might have clarified
the harm caused by WWP’s alleged inducement after the deadline lapsed. It did
not. Generally, “the law does not regard estoppels with favor, and estoppel is
applied only to avoid injustice.” Barrow v. Dartmouth House Nursing Home, Inc.,
14 N.E.3d 318, 324 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014) (alteration and citations omitted). We
cannot say that inequity would result by requiring LHH to abide by the plain terms
10
Case: 15-12195 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 Page: 11 of 11
of the MOU where it has failed to meet even one of the three required prongs
proving equitable estoppel.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders dated April 16, 2015, and
June 11, 2015, granting summary judgement and attorney’s fees and costs in favor
of WWP.
AFFIRMED.
11