Al-Harazi v. Yemen Exploration

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 99-10574
MOHAMMED AL-HARAZI,
dba Arabian Catering Co.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
YEMEN EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION CO.,
a partnership,
Defendant-Appellee,
YEMEN HUNT OIL CO.,
a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee,
EXXON YEMEN INC.,
a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
Dallas Division
(3:97-CV-1921-L)
January 25, 2001
Before SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and ROETTGER*, District
*
District Judge of the Southern District of Florida, sitting by
designation.
1
Judge.
PER CURIAM:**
Mohammed Al-Harazi, d/b/a Arabian Catering Co., (“Al-Harazi”)
brought this suit against Yemen Exploration and Production Co.,
Yemen Hunt Oil Co., and Exxon Yemen Inc. (collectively, “YEPC”),
seeking damages for breach of contract and fraud by defendants in
their failure to perform obligations under a contract whereby Al-
Harazi provided them with catering and camp services during 1995
(“the 1995 contract”). Al-Harazi claimed that the defendants
forced or fraudulently induced him to employ more employees than
reasonably necessary as anticipated in his bid for the contract,
and that YEPC was required to compensate and reimburse him for the
excessive wage expenses. Al-Harazi proffered testimonial and
documentary evidence regarding the performance of the defendants’
1997 contract with Sodexho, the succeeding camp and catering
contractor, to demonstrate by comparison YEPC’s fraud and
intentional breach of its obligation to compensate or reimburse Al-
Harazi for all labor costs under the 1995 contract.
YEPC succeeded in excluding all evidence related to the 1997
contract by a motion in limine. At the close of Al-Harazi’s case-
in-chief at trial, the district court granted YEPC’s motion for
judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and dismissed Al-Harazi’s
**
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
breach of contract and fraudulent inducement claims. The jury
returned a verdict for YEPC on the remaining claims, and the
district court entered a take-nothing judgment against Al-Harazi.
Al-Harazi appeals, contending that the district court erred in
excluding the evidence related to the 1997 contract and in granting
the defendants’ JMOL.
In granting YEPC’s motion in limine, the district court found
that the 1997 and 1995 contracts were not materially similar, and
that the 1997 contract between YEPC and Sodexho was, therefore, of
little probative value in determining the intention of YEPC and Al-
Harazi regarding the 1995 contract. The district court found,
moreover, that the introduction of the 1997 contract would pose a
substantial risk of jury confusion. The 1995 contract required Al-
Harazi to “retain all Yemeni nationals employed by the previous
catering contractor[.]” The 1997 contract, by contrast, merely
required the contractor to “retain a cost effective staff of Yemeni
nationals[.]” Al-Harazi failed to demonstrate that the district
court abused its discretion in ruling that the slight probative
value, if any, of the 1997 YEPC-Sodexho contract was outweighed by
the risk of jury confusion that could result from the introduction
of a different contract, involving a different contractor,
concerning a different contract year. See Smith v. Isuzu Motors
Ltd., 137 F.3d 859, 861 (5th Cir. 1998) (“We review the district
court’s rulings for abuse of discretion.”); Kelly v. Boeing
Petroleum Servs., Inc., 61 F.3d 350, 357-58 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding
3
no abuse of discretion in district court’s relevance ruling where
excluded evidence bore only a “tenuous relationship” to the
complained-of acts).
Pursuant to a de novo review, we find no error in the district
court’s grant of JMOL regarding Al-Harazi’s fraudulent inducement
claim. See Sobley v. Southern Natural Gas Co., 210 F.3d 561, 563-
64 (5th Cir. 2000) (“We review de novo the trial court's decision
to grant judgment as a matter of law applying the same standards
the trial court used, and will affirm unless the material evidence
is such that reasonable persons could find for the [non-movant].”).
To prove fraudulent inducement, Al-Harazi had to present evidence
from which a reasonable trier of fact could find or infer that a
knowingly false misrepresentation of material fact was made by
YEPC, that Al-Harazi relied on that misrepresentation, and that the
reliance on the misrepresentation led to damages. See Formosa
Plastics Corp. v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960
S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1997). Although “[a] promise of future
performance constitutes an actionable misrepresentation if the
promise was made with no intention of performing at the time it was
made[,] ... the mere failure to perform a contract is not evidence
of fraud.” Id. at 48. Al-Harazi failed to present evidence that
YEPC made a misrepresentation of fact or of its intention to
perform its obligations under the 1995 contract. Moreover, the
jury found that YEPC in fact did not fail to perform its
obligations under the contract and that Al-Harazi therefore
4
incurred no damages, and this finding is not challenged on this
appeal. Consequently, we agree with the district court that YEPC
was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of
fraudulent inducement.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
judgment.
S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\99\99-10574.0 5