Black Agents & Brokers Agency v. Near North Ins.
| Decision Date | 27 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-2750.,04-2750. |
| Citation | 409 F.3d 833 |
| Parties | BLACK AGENTS & BROKERS AGENCY, INC., Milton Ward, Melvin Ward, in their capacity as shareholders and officers of Black Agents & Brokers Agency, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEAR NORTH INSURANCE BROKERAGE, INC., Majestic Star Casino, LLC, Trump Indiana, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Douglas M. Grimes (argued), Gary, IN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Lisa P. Conlon, Latham & Watkins, Chicago, IL, Glenn Ronaldson (argued), Ronaldson & Kuchler, Chicago, IL, Thomas W. Farlow (argued), Julia Blackwell Gelinas, Lucy R. Dollens, Locke Reynolds, Indianapolis, IN, Gilbert King, Jr., Gary, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and BAUER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Black Agents & Brokers Agency, Inc. ("BABA") and its shareholders brought claims of breach of contract, fraud, and discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against defendant-appellee Near North Insurance Brokerage, Inc. ("Near North") and defendants-appellees Trump Indiana, Inc., Majestic Star Casino, LLC, and Buffington Harbor Casinos, LLC ("the Riverboats").1 The district court granted motions by Near North and the Riverboats for summary judgment, and BABA appealed. We affirm.
In 1995, Near North sought to write insurance for the Riverboats, which operate casinos on Lake Michigan in Gary, Indiana. Under Indiana law, the Riverboats have an affirmative duty to grant a percentage of their contracts to minority-owned businesses. See IND. CODE §§ 4-33-14-1 et seq. Near North recognized that it stood a better chance of winning the Riverboats' business if it had a relationship with a minority-owned company. With this in mind, Near North approached BABA, a state-certified minority-owned business, to explore a co-brokerage arrangement. In 1996, Near North and BABA negotiated and finalized the Consulting Agreement that is at issue here. Pursuant to this Agreement, BABA was to serve as an "independent contractor" to Near North, and Near North would pay BABA $45,000 annually for services that included public relations work, information gathering, and scheduling meetings. The term of the Consulting Agreement was for one year, starting July 15, 1996, renewable for additional yearly periods or modifiable "only upon the signed, written agreement of both parties." The Consulting Agreement also stated that each party had the right to cancel upon giving sixty days' notice.
After Near North and BABA finalized the Consulting Agreement, both parties made a joint presentation to the Riverboats. Afterwards, the Riverboats negotiated with Near North exclusively and, in 1996, decided to enter into a contract to purchase insurance from Near North. Pursuant to this insurance contract between the Riverboats and Near North, Near North would submit to the Riverboats invoices for the insurance premiums in BABA's name. Upon receiving the invoice, the Riverboats would write a check payable to BABA in full payment of the premium, which BABA would endorse to Near North and return to the Riverboats. The Riverboats would then mail the endorsed check in full payment of the insurance premium to Near North. Near North would then cut a separate check to BABA in the amount of $45,000 as payment for BABA's services, pursuant to their Consulting Agreement.
This consulting arrangement between Near North and BABA continued beyond the one-year term of the Agreement, but not without modifications. In 1998, Near North unilaterally reduced the flat annual fee it paid to BABA to $40,000, and in 1999 Near North began paying BABA quarterly, as opposed to annually. During this time, Near North—not the Riverboats— paid all of BABA's fees. After the initial joint presentation to the Riverboats in 1996, BABA's sole interaction with the Riverboats involved endorsing insurance premium checks over to Near North.
In 2000, one of BABA's principals defected, and a dispute arose when he tried to take with him some of BABA's business, including the Near North account. Confusion ensued, and Near North stopped its quarterly payments to BABA. BABA responded by suing both Near North and the Riverboats (which continued to make their premium payments to Near North), alleging breach of contract, fraud, and discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. At trial, the district court granted motions by Near North and the Riverboats for summary judgment and for partial judgment on the pleadings. In an opinion issued on June 7, 2004, the district court ruled that BABA's breach of contract claim against the Riverboats failed as a matter of law because the two parties were not bound by an enforceable agreement; BABA's breach of contract claim against Near North failed because their modified Consulting Agreement was terminable at will. BABA's § 1981 claim against both defendants failed as matter of law for lack of evidence of intent on the parts of Near North or the Riverboats to discriminate on the basis of race. As for the fraud claims, the district court found that BABA had abandoned its claim against Near North, and that it lacked standing to bring a claim of fraud against the Riverboats. BABA appealed the district court's rulings on its breach of contract and § 1981 claims.
Meanwhile, Near North became involved in a separate court proceeding, and on August 31, 2004, the district judge issued a stay of all claims and proceedings against Near North. Pursuant to this order, Near North filed a motion with this court on November 24, 2004, seeking a stay of all proceedings against Near North relating to this appeal. We granted the stay with respect to Near North only on January 7, 2005.
A district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Franklin v. City of Evanston, 384 F.3d 838, 843 (7th Cir.2004) (citing Dykema v. Skoumal, 261 F.3d 701, 704 (7th Cir.2001)). "To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). This court must draw every reasonable inference from the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Haefling v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 169 F.3d 494, 497 (7th Cir.1999). The production of only a scintilla of evidence, however, is insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In light of this court's order staying all claims and proceedings against Near North, we will confine our analysis as much as possible to BABA's arguments as they pertain to the Riverboats.
The district court ruled that BABA had produced no genuine issue of material fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Mach Mining, LLC
... ... of the EEOC's suit on the ground that the agency failed to engage in good-faith conciliation ... a class of female job applicants at its mine near Johnston City, Illinois. In late 2010, the EEOC ... See § 2000e–5(f)(1); Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 360, 97 S.Ct. 2447, ... ...
-
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Bloomberg L.P.
... ... , is modest; the EEOC, as the enforcement agency, has discretion to formulate conciliation efforts ... 2000e5(e)(1)); see also Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 371, 97 S.Ct. 2447, ... ...
-
Safety Solutions, Inc. v. City of Chicago
...one or more rights enumerated in § 1981, such as the making and enforcing of a contract." Black Agents & Brokers Agency, Inc. v. Near North Ins. Brokerage, Inc., 409 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Morris v. Office Max, Inc., 89 F.3d 411, 413 (7th Cir. 1996)). For purposes of § 1981,......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. JBS USA, LLC, Case No. 8:10CV318.
... ... Miller, McGrath, North Law Firm, Omaha, NE, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM ... agreement that references their defined agency relationship. In the worksharing agreement ... Lawyer v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 100 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1008 (W.D.Mo.2000) ... ...