Buckmasters, Ltd. v. Action Archery, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 95 D-057-N. |
| Citation | 915 F. Supp. 1188 |
| Parties | BUCKMASTERS, LTD., Plaintiff, v. ACTION ARCHERY, INC. and Jeff Henderson, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Richard H. Sforzini, Jr. and Dana C. Gibson, Montgomery, AL, for plaintiff.
Stephen B. Griffin and Julia C. Kimbrough, Birmingham, AL, for defendants.
DE MENT, District Judge.
Before the court is defendants Action Archery, Inc. and Jeff Henderson's motion for summary judgment filed July 31, 1995. The plaintiff, Buckmasters, Ltd., responded in opposition on August 22, 1995. Also pending before the court is the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, filed on August 1, 1995, to which the defendants responded in opposition on August 21, 1995. Because the motions involve similar issues and arise from the same set of facts, the court will address them simultaneously. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law and the record as a whole, the court finds that the defendants' motion is due to be denied and that the plaintiff's motion is due to be granted.
This court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as there exists complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. Personal jurisdiction and venue are uncontested.
On a motion for summary judgment, the court is to construe the evidence and factual inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Summary judgment can be entered on a claim only if it is shown "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). As the Supreme Court has explained the summary judgment standard:
The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The trial court's function at this juncture is not "to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citations omitted). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; see also Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 933 (11th Cir.1989).
The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and of establishing, based on relevant "portions of `the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions in the file, together with affidavits, if any,'" that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53. Once this initial demonstration under Rule 56(c) is made, the burden of production, not persuasion, shifts to the nonmoving party. The nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings and by his own affidavits, or by the `depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
In meeting this burden the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is a metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Corp. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). That party must demonstrate that there is a "genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356. An action is void of a material issue for trial "where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587; see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2511.
Buckmasters is an Alabama Limited Partnership engaged in the promotion of the sport of bow hunting deer. Buckmasters offers memberships in its organization, which includes, but is not limited to, merchandise, magazine subscriptions and tournament bow competitions. It also offers a deer target system, which is licensed by Buckmasters and used by competitors to qualify for Buckmasters sanctioned tournaments.
In the fall of 1993, the defendant, Jeff Henderson ("Mr. Henderson"), contacted Buckmasters in response to an advertisement regarding a bow hunting camp, sponsored by Buckmasters. Dep. of Henderson at 15-16. Mr. Henderson telephoned Buckmasters and spoke with Mark Shoemaker, an employee of Buckmasters. Id. at 18. The conversation eventually led to a discussion about the Buckmasters Action Target System ("Target System").1 Id. At Mr. Henderson's request, Rick Burley ("Mr. Burley") of Buckmasters sent him a "License and Security Agreement" regarding the licensing and the use of the Buckmasters marks and logos in connection with the purchase of the Target System. Dep. of Burley at 19-20.
After receiving the proposed contract (Pl.'s Ex. 1), Mr. Henderson called Mr. Burley and informed him that at the present time he could not afford to purchase the Target System. Dep. of Burley at 26. Mr. Henderson also stated that there were a number of clauses in the contract that he did not understand. Dep. of Henderson at 24-25. Therefore, at that time, Mr. Henderson chose to do nothing with the contract and simply filed it away. Id. at 24-25 & 31.
The next contact Mr. Henderson had with Buckmasters was at the Palmetto Sportsman Spring Classic ("Palmetto Classic") in Columbia, South Carolina in March, 1994. Id. at 32; Dep. of Burley at 28. Mr. Henderson went to the Palmetto Classic to view the Target System. Dep. of Henderson at 32. At the Palmetto Classic, Mr. Burley told Mr. Henderson about a Target System in New Jersey that might be available for sale at a reduced price. Id. at 33-34. Mr. Henderson also discussed with Mr. Burley the possibility of giving Mr. Henderson an exclusive 200-mile territory in connection with the promotion and use of the Target System. Id. at 35. Mr. Burley got Mr. Henderson's telephone number and told Mr. Henderson that he would contact him. Id. at 34; Dep. of Burley at 28.
Sometime thereafter, Mr. Burley telephoned Mr. Henderson and explained that John Montefusco, Sr.'s son, who lived in New Jersey, was dying of cancer and that Mr. Montefusco wanted to sell his Target System. Dep. of Burley at 28-29. Mr. Burley gave Mr. Montefusco the telephone number of Mr. Henderson, and several weeks later, Mr. Montefusco called Mr. Henderson to discuss the Target System. Dep. of Henderson at 34.
After Mr. Henderson had spoken with Mr. Montefusco, he contacted Mr. Burley and told him that he was ready to go forward with the contract. Dep. of Burley at 33-34. At this point, Buckmasters generated another copy of the "License and Security Agreement." Pl.'s Ex. 2. The differences between the first contract sent to Mr. Henderson and this second contract were that the security agreement in the contract had been deleted in the second one and the territory was increased to a 200-mile radius from a 50-mile radius. Pl.'s Ex. 1 & 2. All of these changes were done at the request of Mr. Henderson. Dep. of Burley at 34. Mr. Burley's supervisor, Lewis Figh ("Mr. Figh"),2 gave Mr. Burley permission to make these changes. Id. at 34-36.
Mr. Henderson received the second proposed contract in April, 1994. Dep. of Henderson at 37-38. He hired an attorney, Susan Davis, to look over the document. Id. at 37-38. The second contract stated that Mr. Henderson was the licensee. Pl.'s Ex. 2. Mr. Henderson, however, had told Mr. Burley that the contract was to be in the name of Action Archery, Inc., a company that Mr. Henderson was forming, as the Licensee. Dep. of Henderson at 46-47. Mr. Henderson also pointed out to Mr. Burley that he did not like the language of ¶ 2(i) of the second contract, which was the provision granting Mr. Henderson an exclusive 200-mile territory for a period of two years. Dep. of Burley at 38. Mr. Henderson and his attorney then made changes to the document that were discussed with Mr. Burley. Dep. of Henderson at 47-48; Pl.'s Ex. 3.
In addition to these changes, the new contract ("third proposed contract") prepared by Mr. Henderson also contained a change in ¶ 2(f). Paragraph 2(f) of the third contract states as follows:
f. Memberships in Buckmasters. In further consideration for the rights and privileges granted in connection with use of the Marks, Licensee shall make available to all individuals who use the Target, whether in connection with a Tournament or otherwise, Membership in Buckmasters and shall provide any Nonmembers of the opportunity to renew or purchase Membership for an amount equal to the cost thereof then being charged by Buckmasters. Buckmasters shall credit thirty-five percent (35%) of the cost of each Buckmasters membership or renewal sold by Licensee against the License Fee owed to Buckmasters by Licensee under Section 3 hereinbelow. Licensee shall utilize Membership forms and information supplied by Buckmasters and shall submit all information relating Memberships and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Gordon, Bankruptcy No. 96-33482
...however, "does not require that the complaint explain the plaintiff's theory of the case. . . ." Buckmasters, Ltd. v. Action Archery, Inc., 915 F.Supp. 1188, 1194 (M.D.Ala.1996). With regard to allegations of fraud, "bankruptcy courts do not necessarily require the rigid standards demanded ......
-
Hardy Corp. v. Rayco Indus., Inc.
...a timely appeal. 7. Our review of the record indicates that this case is clearly distinguishable from Buckmasters, Ltd. v. Action Archery, Inc., 915 F.Supp. 1188, 1195–96 (M.D.Ala.1996). In Buckmasters, the testimony indicated that the representative of Auction Archery “lulled” Buckmasters ......
-
Guarantee Co. of North Am. U.S. v. Wainwright
...of Rule 9(b), however, is to "provide fair notice of the alleged fraud to the opposing party." Buckmasters, Ltd. v. Action Archery, Inc., 915 F. Supp. 1188, 1194-95 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (DeMent, J.); see Ziemba v. Cascade Int'l, Inc., 256 F.3d1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2001) (stating that Rule 9(b) ......
-
Med. Park Station, LLC v. 72 Madison, LLC.
...in its brief, the principal authority relied upon by the assignee, the federal district court decision in Buckmasters, Ltd. v. Action Archery, Inc., 915 F.Supp. 1188 (M.D.Ala.1996), was decided before Foremost, and, in its holding as to reformation, the federal court expressly relied upon c......