United States v. Neb. Beef, Ltd.
Decision Date | 27 August 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 17-1344,17-1344 |
Citation | 901 F.3d 930 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. NEBRASKA BEEF, LTD., Defendant - Appellant |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Brian J. Brislen, of Omaha, NE. The following attorney(s) appeared on the appellant brief; Brian J. Brislen, of Omaha, NE., Adam R. Feeney, of Omaha, NE.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Vikram Swaruup, of Washington, D.C., DC. The following attorney(s) appeared on the appellee brief; Tovah Calderon, of Washington, DC., Vikram Swaruup, of Washington, D.C., DC.
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BEAM and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Nebraska Beef, Ltd. ("Nebraska Beef") appeals the district court's1 grant of summary judgment to the government in this action to enforce a settlement agreement. We affirm.
In 2012, the United States Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC),2 a section in the Department of Justice (DOJ), began an investigation into Nebraska Beef, a meat-packing company. The investigation sought to determine whether the company discriminated against immigrant workers in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. Specifically, the OSC alleged that Nebraska Beef unlawfully required work-authorized immigrants to provide certain documents not required of non-immigrants. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(6).
In 2015, rather than proceed into litigation, the government and Nebraska Beef entered into a settlement agreement. The agreement required Nebraska Beef to pay a $200,000 civil penalty and to provide back pay to those who were not hired as a result of the practice or whose hiring was delayed by it. Nebraska Beef also agreed not to engage in any such practices in the future. The third and fourth opening recitals of the agreement set forth the parties' positions on liability:
Appellant's Add. at 10.
Paragraph 3(b) stated, "The Office of Special Counsel maintains its right, as a federal agency statutorily charged with serving and educating the public regarding the scope of its enforcement activities, to notify the public, including but not limited to individuals [Nebraska Beef] identifies and notifies pursuant to paragraph 3, about this Agreement." Appellant's Add. at 11.
Nebraska Beef signed the agreement on August 20, 2015, and the government executed it four days later. That same day, the OSC issued a press release announcing the agreement on the DOJ website. The webpage also linked to a copy of the settlement agreement. The first two paragraphs of the release stated:
Appellant's Add. at 20. Three days later, Nebraska Beef's counsel sent a letter to the OSC accusing it of breaching the agreement. The letter stated that the DOJ lacked the authority to make a finding that Nebraska Beef "required non-U.S. citizens ... to present specific documentary proof of their immigration status" as described in the press release. Appellant's Add. at 22. Nebraska Beef stated that it never agreed to such a finding and that the agreement did not provide for such a finding. Nebraska Beef declared that, as a consequence of the government's breach, it would not make any of the payments required by the agreement.
After Nebraska Beef made good on that threat, the government filed this breach-of-contract suit to compel compliance with the settlement agreement. Nebraska Beef counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought declaratory relief. Specifically, Nebraska Beef sought an order releasing it from its obligations under the agreement because the government's statement that its "investigation found" wrongdoing was a material breach excusing its nonperformance.
Nebraska Beef filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and the government filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The central question facing the district court was whether the government's press release stating that its investigation found that Nebraska Beef had engaged in illegal employment practices constituted a material breach of the agreement. The district court determined that it did not and ruled in favor of the government.
The district court began its analysis by discussing the effect of the recitals and concluded that "under Nebraska law, recitals are generally understood to be useful insofar as they are able to clarify ambiguous or imprecise portions of an agreement." United States v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd. , No. 8:15-cv-00370-JFB-TDT, 2016 WL 10636373, at *2 (D. Neb. Dec. 9, 2016) (citing Props. Inv. Grp. of Mid-Am. v. Applied Commc'ns, Inc. , 242 Neb. 464, 495 N.W.2d 483, 489 (1993) ; McKinnon v. Baker , 220 Neb. 314, 370 N.W.2d 492, 494 (1985) ; In re Strickland's Estate , 181 Neb. 478, 149 N.W.2d 344, 351 (1967) ). It also looked to other states' approaches to similar situations. Ultimately, the court held that the "WHEREAS" clauses in the recitals "related to Nebraska Beef's denial of liability." Id. at *3. The court concluded that the recitals "are binding portions of the Settlement Agreement" because they were referenced in the operative portion of the agreement. Id. ( ).
Despite holding that the recitals were a binding part of the agreement, the court held that no breach, material or otherwise, occurred:
Id. It later noted that "[t]here is absolutely nothing in the Settlement Agreement that limits or constrains the statements of the United States." Id. at *4.
Regarding materiality, the court stated that a material breach either "defeats the essential purpose of the contract or makes it impossible for the other party to perform under the contract." Id. (quoting Siouxland Ethanol, LLC v. Sebade Bros., LLC , 290 Neb. 230, 859 N.W.2d 586, 592 (2015) ). The court determined the purpose of the agreement was to "resolve the dispute in a compromise that avoided litigation" and determined that the "press release did not frustrate this purpose." Id.
The use of the word "found" rather than the phrase "had reasonable cause to believe" did not frustrate the agreement between the parties to resolve this dispute without litigation. The "essential purpose" of the agreement, the negotiation that Nebraska Beef would pay a fine in exchange for the United States' not pursuing legal action against them, remains intact.
Id. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and ordered Nebraska Beef to abide by the settlement.3
"We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. " Swift & Co. v. Elias Farms, Inc. , 539 F.3d 849, 851 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Because Nebraska Beef has failed to identify a promise breached by the OSC, we affirm.
As an initial matter, we note that the government, citing Audio Odyssey, Ltd. v. United States , 255 F.3d 512, 520 (8th Cir. 2001), alleges in a footnote that federal common law applies to this case. Nebraska Beef did not address this contention. Nonetheless, we find no error in the district court's application of the law of Nebraska, the forum state.
In United States v. Bame , the government sued for unjust enrichment to recover a mistakenly disbursed tax refund and sought the application of federal common law. 721 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
B. Thomas & Co. v. Universal Warranty Corp.
...its breach, damage, and compliance with any conditions precedent that activate the defendant's duty." United States v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd., 901 F.3d 930, 934 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Henriksen v. Gleason, 263 Neb. 840, 643 N.W.2d 652, 658 (2002)). As an initial matter, the Court notes that ......
-
In re Kurtz
...a promise, its breach, damage, and compliance with any conditions precedent that activate the defendant's duty.’ " U.S. v. Neb. Beef, Ltd., 901 F.3d 930, 934 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Henriksen v. Gleason, 263 Neb. 840, 643 N.W.2d 652, 658 (2002) ) (citation omitted). " ‘A breach is the nonp......
-
Alvarenga-Flores v. Sessions
... ... SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.No. 17-2920United States Court of ... ...
-
In re Podwinski
...whether a settlement agreement exists by applying the substantive law of the forum state - Nebraska. United States v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd., 901 F.3d 930, 934 (8th Cir. 2018); Gosiger, Inc. v. Elliott Aviation, Inc., 823 F.3d 497, 502 (8th Cir. 2016); Oriental Trading Co., Inc. v. Yagoozon, I......