Space Technology Development Corp. v. Boeing Co. ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1671
SPACE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION;
EARTH SEARCH SCIENCES, INCORPORATED;
ACCUPROBE, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
THE BOEING COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-05-411-1)
Argued: September 19, 2006 Decided: December 12, 2006
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and Thomas E. JOHNSTON,
United States District Judge for the Southern District of West
Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Johnston wrote the opinion,
in which Judge Michael and Judge Gregory joined.
ARGUED: Jan Ingham Berlage, BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL,
L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Amy Berman Jackson,
TROUT CACHERIS, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON
BRIEF: Constantinos George Panagopoulos, BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS &
INGERSOLL, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. John Thorpe
Richards, Jr., TROUT CACHERIS, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
JOHNSTON, District Judge:
Appellants, Space Technology Development Corporation (“STDC”),
Earth Search Sciences, Inc. (“ESSI”), and Accuprobe, Inc.
(“Accuprobe”), appeal the district court’s dismissal of their
breach of contract claim and breach of covenant of good faith and
fair dealing claim against Defendant Appellee The Boeing Company
(“Boeing”). For the reasons discussed below, the district court’s
ruling is affirmed.
I.
STDC and ESSI began to negotiate a joint venture with Boeing
for the completion, launch, and deployment of a Naval EarthMap
Observer Satellite (“NEMO”) in October 1999. NEMO contained an
onboard hyperspectral imaging system that would produce imagery
data for sale to third parties (“Project”). Following the
negotiations, Boeing conducted due diligence on the Project at the
U.S. Naval Research Laboratories where NEMO was being constructed.
On April 3, 2000, STDC, ESSI, and Boeing executed a document
that contained two sections, one entitled “Nonbinding Provisions”
and the other entitled “Binding Provisions” (“Letter of Intent”).
The Binding Provisions of the Letter of Intent provided, among
other things, that Boeing would “lend $1 million to STDC at the
execution of this Letter and the loan agreement”, “negotiate in
good faith to arrive at a mutually acceptable LLC Agreement and
3
other key contracts contemplated in this Letter”, “[o]n request of
ESSI . . . provide reasonable assistance in the negotiation of the
Navy Contract and other contracts with respect to the Project”, and
work with ESSI and STDC to “use all reasonable efforts to assist
the LLC in raising the additional equity and debt capital from
third parties required to complete the capitalization of the LLC.”1
(J.A. 18.)
The Binding Provisions of the Letter of Intent also contained
three termination provisions. These three provisions governed the
means by which the parties could potentially terminate their
binding obligations under the Letter of Intent. First, Paragraph
J(I) of the Binding Provisions stated that the parties could
terminate by mutual written consent. Second, under Paragraph
J(ii), either party could terminate “at any time prior to May 1,
2000, if the results of its due diligence investigation [were] not
reasonably satisfactory to it.” (J.A. 19.) Finally, either party
could terminate pursuant to Paragraph J(iii) by giving written
notice “to the other party if the Closing [had] not occurred on or
before August 1, 2000, provided, however, that the termination of
the Binding Provisions shall not affect the liability of a party
1
Several clauses of the Nonbinding Provisions discussed how
the parties agreed that “ESSI will cause STDC to form a limited
liability company (“LLC”)” for purposes of furthering the joint
venture. (J.A. 14.) Appellants’ complaint does not allege that
the LLC was ever formed.
4
for breach of any of the Binding Provisions prior to the
termination.” Id.
On April 19, 2000, Boeing informed STDC that it intended to
abandon the Project, and two days later, sent STDC and ESSI a
letter that confirmed Boeing’s intent to terminate (“April 21
Letter”). The April 21 Letter stated, in pertinent part, “Boeing
has decided that it has no further wish to become an investor in
NEMO or any joint venture related to that project.” (J.A. 21.) It
further provided that:
The reason for this decision has nothing to do with our
opinion of the viability of the project. Boeing has a
limited capacity to absorb new business projects like
this one. This project is sufficiently removed from our
core business that it would take a significant amount of
time to evaluate the business case for NEMO. Our
management has concluded that we are too occupied with
other such activities to be able to pursue this one,
especially in view of the Navy’s requirement for a fast
decision.
Id.
Approximately five years later, Appellants filed suit against
Boeing. Subsequently, Boeing filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court
5
granted Boeing’s motion to dismiss on both claims,2 and Appellants
filed this appeal.
II.
This Court reviews the dismissal of an action under Rule
12(b)(6) de novo. Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir.
2002). “A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should only be granted if, after
accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint
as true, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set
of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.” Migdal
v. Rowe Price-Fleming Int'l Inc., 248 F.3d 321, 325 (4th Cir.
2001). This Court must also accept as true the facts set forth in
the exhibits attached to the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c);
Eastern Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d
175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000) (examining a lease attached to complaint).
However, the Court need not accept as true conclusions or
inferences from the complaint that are contradicted by the attached
exhibits. See Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc.,
2
Neither party discussed Count Two of the complaint, Breach of
the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, in their brief.
Below, Boeing argued that when parties enter into an agreement, “an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is inapplicable to
those rights.” Riggs Nat’l Bank v. Linch, 36 F.3d 370, 373 (4th
Cir. 1994); Ward’s Equip., Inc. v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., (Va.
1997). Appellants responded that Count Two was “duplicative of the
breach of contract claim.” (J.A. 89.) Accordingly, the district
court’s judgment is affirmed with respect to Count Two of the
complaint, and the Court will only address Count One, Breach of
Contract.
6
936 F.2d 1462, 1465 (4th Cir. 1991) (“In the event of conflict
between the bare allegations of the complaint and any exhibit
attached pursuant to Rule 10(c) . . . the exhibit prevails.”). As
an important note, we would like to emphasize the rule that in a
12(b)(6) motion, this Court will only consider that which is
contained in the complaint, attached as an exhibit pursuant to Rule
10(c), a matter of public record, or a fact that has been
judicially noted,3 and will not consider anything else.4
Because this is a contract claim based on diversity
jurisdiction, Virginia law applies. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins,
304 U.S. 64 (1938). Under Virginia law, “when the terms of a
contract are clear and unambiguous, a court is required to construe
the terms according to their plain meaning.” Golding v. Floyd, 539
S.E.2d 735, 736 (Va. 2001). In doing so, a document’s label is not
dispositive, rather it is the parties’ intent to be bound that is
the salient issue. Tilley v. Jessee, 789 F.2d 1074, 1075 (4th Cir.
1986) (true intent of the parties, rather than labels attached to
the agreement control the characterization of the obligation);
Donnelly v. Donatelli & Klien, Inc., 519 S.E.2d 133, 138 (Va. 1999)
3
See Hall v. Virginia, 385 F.3d 421, 424 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004)
(citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 268 n.1 (1986)).
4
The parties reference a Declaration of Dr. John Peel III In
Opposition of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and a copy of an
unsigned loan agreement, both of which were attached to Appellants’
Memorandum In Opposition To Motion To Dismiss. Because these
exhibits were not attached to the complaint, this Court will not
consider them. (J.A. 60-70.)
7
(labels are not controlling). If an agreement, as presented in the
complaint, reflects an unambiguous intent to be bound, then a party
will be bound to its obligations. See Beazer Homes Corp. v.
VMIF/Anden Southbridge Venture, 235 F. Supp. 2d 485, 490 (E.D. Va.
2002). Additionally,“a condition precedent exists where ‘the
contract is made in form, but does not become operative as a
contract until some future specified act is performed . . . .’”
Hammond v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 159 F. Supp. 2d 249, 254 (E.D.
Va. 2001) (citation omitted). If the condition precedent does not
occur, then the defendant cannot be held liable for failure to
perform the contract. See, e.g., Forrest Creek Assocs. Ltd. v.
McLean Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 831 F.2d 1238, 1241 (4th Cir. 1987).
III.
In this case, the parties clearly intended to be bound by the
paragraphs contained in the Binding Provisions. This is evident by
the language in the paragraph preceding the Binding Provisions,
which states “[u]pon execution by ESSI and Boeing of this Letter .
. . the following lettered paragraphs . . . will constitute the
legally binding and enforceable agreement of ESSI/STDC and Boeing.”
(J.A. 17.) See Tilley, 789 F.2d at 1075; Donnelly, 519 S.E.2d at
138. Reading the complaint and Letter of Intent in the light most
favorable to Appellants, the Court must first decide Boeing’s
8
obligations under the Binding Provisions and when those obligations
required performance. Then the Court must determine whether Boeing
was legally permitted to terminate its obligations prior to
performance.
Appellants argue that Boeing breached the Letter of Intent by
its (1) failure to loan interim financing in the amount of $1
million; (2) failure to negotiate in good faith to arrive at a
mutually acceptable LLC Agreement; (3) failure to use all
reasonable efforts to assist the LLC in raising the additional
equity and debt capital; and (4) failure to provide reasonable
assistance in the negotiation of the Navy Contract and other
contracts with respect to the Project.
Appellants have failed to state a claim for breach of contract
under any of these provisions. With regard to the $1 million
interim financing, the complaint neither alleges that there was
ever a valid loan agreement, nor was a valid loan agreement
attached to it as an exhibit. Looking at the plain meaning of the
Letter of Intent, the obligation to loan the $1 million would be
triggered “at the execution of this Letter and the loan agreement.”
(J.A. 18.) Based on that language, the two documents needed to be
executed before Boeing could be liable for breach of contract.
Forrest Creek Assocs. Ltd., 831 F.2d at 1241. Furthermore,
Appellants needed to allege such facts in their complaint, and they
did not. Accordingly, because there was no loan agreement prior to
9
April 21, 2000, there was no obligation on Boeing’s part to provide
the interim financing of $1 million.
Next, Boeing’s obligation to negotiate in good faith and
arrive at an acceptable LLC Agreement is an “agreement to agree”
that is unenforceable under Virginia law. See Beazer Homes Corp.,
235 F. Supp. 2d at 488, 490 (holding that a clause that required
the parties to “negotiate in good faith” was an agreement to
negotiate at some point in the future and unenforceable under
Virginia law). Therefore, there can be no breach of contract claim
under this paragraph.
Additionally, the plain text of the Letter of Intent required
that there be an LLC in existence in order to trigger Boeing’s
obligation to use reasonable efforts to assist the LLC in raising
additional equity and debt capital. Golding, 539 S.E.2d at 736.
The complaint does not allege that there was an LLC in existence
prior to Boeing’s termination. Therefore, as of April 21, 2000,
Boeing was under no obligation to follow through on its obligation
to use reasonable efforts to assist the LLC.
Finally, Appellants argue that Boeing was obligated to provide
reasonable assistance in the negotiation of the Navy Contract and
other contracts with respect to the Project. Under the plain text
of the Letter of Intent, Boeing’s obligation was to be triggered by
the “request of ESSI.” (J.A. 18.) The complaint does not allege
that ESSI requested reasonable assistance, rather it only alleges
10
that “[a]fter sending the April 21 Letter, [Boeing] failed to
comply with any of its obligations under the [Letter of Intent] .
. . .” (J.A. 8.) As discussed below, following the April 21
Letter, Boeing was under no obligation to perform. Furthermore,
Boeing was obligated to negotiate these contracts on behalf of the
LLC. Because the LLC was not formed, Boeing could not have
breached its obligation to provide reasonable assistance.
Thus, there were several acts that needed to take place from
April 3 to April 21 before Boeing would have been obligated to
perform within that time period. Because none of those acts took
place, Boeing did not breach the Letter of Intent before April 21.
Having found that prior to the April 21 Letter, Boeing had not
breached its obligations to Appellants, this Court agrees with the
district court when it ruled that the April 21 Letter terminated
Boeing’s future obligations. The April 21 Letter represented
Boeing exercising its ability to terminate, but remain liable for
damages, at any time prior to August 1, 2000 if the Closing had not
yet taken place. Boeing exercised that right to terminate, and as
discussed above, Appellants cannot show any breach that would
render Boeing liable for damages under the Letter of Intent.
11
IV.
Accordingly, the district court’s ruling to dismiss
Appellants’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
12