CB3 Enters. LLC v. Damas

Citation415 S.W.3d 163
Decision Date10 December 2013
Docket NumberNo. WD 75670.,WD 75670.
PartiesCB3 ENTERPRISES LLC, Appellant, v. Nage L. DAMAS, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Dennis J. Dobbels and Christopher J. Mohart, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Richard E. McLeod, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division Four: JAMES E. WELSH, Chief Judge, Presiding, CYNTHIA L. MARTIN, Judge and JAMES C. THOMPSON, Special Judge.
MARTIN.

CB3 Enterprises, LLC (CB3 Enterprises) appeals from the trial court's entry of judgment pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of Nage Damas (Damas) on his counterclaim for indemnification. CB3 Enterprises argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Damas did not, and could not, based on CB3 Enterprises' governing documents, establish a prima facie case for indemnification. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

CB3 Enterprises is a Missouri limited liability company that was formed in 1996 for the express purpose of investing in commercial real estate. At the time of its formation, CB3 Enterprises had three members, all of whom are brothers—Damas, Frederick Damas, and Thomas Damas. Damas acted as the managing member of CB3 Enterprises until he sold his shares of the company to Frederick Damas. Following Damas's departure as the managing member, certain facts were uncovered that caused Frederick and Thomas Damas to believe that Damas breached his fiduciary duties to CB3 Enterprises.

CB3 Enterprises filed a lawsuit against Damas. The petition alleged, inter alia, that Damas breached the fiduciary duties he owed to CB3 Enterprises in that Damas “fail[ed] to disclose conflicts of interests, usurp[ed] company opportunities, misappropriate[ed] company funds, and work[ed] to the detriment of CB3 [Enterprises].” Damas filed a counterclaim against CB3 Enterprises in which he alleged that CB3 Enterprises' governing documents required it to indemnify him for all the costs and expenses incurred in defending or otherwise responding to CB3 Enterprises' lawsuit.

At the close of the evidence following a five-day jury trial, CB3 Enterprises filed a motion for directed verdict on Damas's indemnification counterclaim. CB3 Enterprises argued that its Articles of Organization and its Operating Agreement expressly barred the indemnification counterclaim. The trial court denied the motion. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Damas on CB3 Enterprises' breach of fiduciary duty claim and on Damas's indemnification counterclaim.

CB3 Enterprises filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“the JNOV motion) on Damas's indemnification counterclaim. The JNOV motion argued that Damas “did not and could not establish a prima facie case for the jury to consider by virtue of CB3[ ] [Enterprises'] governing documents.” CB3 Enterprises again argued that its Articles of Organization expressly barred indemnification under the circumstances, and that its Operating Agreement afforded Damas no independent right of indemnification.

The trial court denied the JNOV motion. CB3 Enterprises appeals.

Standard of Review

The trial court's denial of the JNOV motion required it to interpret the company's Articles of Organization and Operating Agreement. A limited liability company's governing documents, including its articles of organization and operating agreement, are construed according to the general rules of contracts. Cf. Exec. Bd. of Mo. Baptist Convention v. Windermere Baptist Conference Ctr., 280 S.W.3d 678, 687 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (applying the same principle to the governing documents of corporations). Thus, the interpretation of a limited liability company's governing documents is a question of law. Cf. Newco Atlas, Inc. v. Park Range Constr., Inc., 272 S.W.3d 886, 891 (Mo.App.W.D.2008) (remarking that interpreting a contract is question of law). “ ‘When the ... denial of a directed verdict or a JNOV is based upon a matter of law, we review the trial court's decision de novo. Bailey v. Hawthorn Bank, 382 S.W.3d 84, 92 (Mo.App.W.D.2012).

Analysis

In its single point on appeal, CB3 Enterprises argues that the trial court erroneously denied the JNOV motion because CB3 Enterprises brought a “direct action” against Damas and the Articles of Organization unambiguously prohibit indemnification for “direct actions” brought “by or in the right of” the company. We agree with CB3 Enterprises that the Articles of Organization are unambiguous. We do not agree, however, that CB3 Enterprises brought a “direct action” against Damas as that term is defined by the Articles of Organization. Instead, CB3 Enterprises brought a “derivative action” against Damas as that term is defined by the Articles of Organization and as to which indemnification was unambiguously required. We thus affirm the trial court's denial of the JNOV motion.

A limited liability company's articles of organization are construed according to the general rules of contracts. Cf. Exec. Bd. of Mo. Baptist Convention, 280 S.W.3d at 687 (applying the same principle to the governing documents of corporations). The primary rule of interpretation is to determine the intent of the parties and give effect to that intent. Id. We give the language used in the articles of organization its plain and ordinary meaning. Cf. Thiemann v. Columbia Pub. Sch. Dist., 338 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Mo.App.W.D.2011) (applying the same principle to the interpretation of a contract). If, using the plain and ordinary meaning, the language is unambiguous, we may not resort to rules of construction to interpret the contract. Id.

Article VIII of the Articles of Organization describes CB3 Enterprises' obligation to indemnify its managers or officers. It does so through two different provisions which state, in relevant part:

A. Direct Actions. The Limited Liability Company shall indemnify any manager or officer of the Limited Liability Company who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil criminal, administrative or investigative, other than an action by or in the right of the Limited Liability Company, by reason of the fact that such manager or officer is or was a manager or officer of the Limited Liability Company ... against liability incurred in connection with such action, suit or proceeding, including attorneys' fees, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by such manager or officer in connection with such action, suit or proceeding, including any appeal thereof, if such manager or officer acted in good faith and in a manner such manager or officer reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the Limited Liability Company and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe such manager's or officer's conduct was unlawful....

B. Derivative Actions. The Limited Liability Company shall indemnify any manager or officer of the Limited Liability Company who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding by or in the right of the Limited Liability Company to procure a judgment in its favor by reason of the fact that such manager or officer is or was a manager or officer of the Limited Liability Company ... against expenses, including attorneys' fees, and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by such manager or officer in connection with the defense or settlement of the action or suit if such manager or officer acted in good faith and in a manner such manager or officer reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the Limited Liability Company....

(Emphasis added.) The Operating Agreement provides that [t]he Manager shall be indemnified by the Company to the fullest extent permitted by Missouri law.”

CB3 Enterprises argues that the “Direct Actions” indemnity provision controls in this case because it brought a “direct action” against Damas. CB3 Enterprises then argues that the “Direct Actions” indemnity provision unambiguously excludes any obligation to indemnify Damas for action[s] by or in the right of the Limited Liability Company. (Emphasis added.)

CB3 Enterprises' argument rests on an erroneous assumption. The argument presumes that the lawsuit filed against Damas was a “direct action.” It was not. “Direct Actions” are defined by the Articles of Organization as any action against a manager or officer acting in that capacity except actions by or in the right of CB3 Enterprises. By its plain terms, the “Direct Actions” indemnity provision does not apply to the action filed “by” CB3 Enterprises against Damas.

Instead, the action filed by CB3 Enterprises against Damas falls squarely within the scope of the “Derivative Actions” indemnity provision. “Derivative Actions” are defined by the Articles of Organization as any action against a manager or officer acting in that capacity initiated by or in the right of CB3 Enterprises. Damas was sued “by” CB3 Enterprises by reason of his status as the managing member of the company. Damas was entitled to indemnification pursuant to a plain reading of the “Derivative Actions” indemnity provision.1

The trial court reached this same conclusion, although it did so after finding the Articles of Organization were ambiguous. The trial court found an ambiguity because it believed the “Direct Actions” indemnity provision disallows indemnity in actions brought against Damas “by or in the right of” CB3 Enterprises, while the “Derivative Actions” indemnity provision requires indemnification in actions brought against Damas “by or in the right of” CB3 Enterprises. The trial court concluded that this was an irreconcilable conflict. The trial court resolved the conflict by resort to the Operating Agreement which the trial court found reflected the parties' intent to afford broad indemnification...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • McGuire v. Lindsay
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2016
    ...Agreement We interpret an L.L.C.'s operating agreement according to the ordinary rules of contract law. CB3 Enterprises LLC v. Damas, 415 S.W.3d 163, 166 (Mo.App.W.D. 2013). The primary rule in interpreting a contract is to ascertain the parties' intent and give effect to that intent. Store......
  • Power Invs. v. Cardinals Preferred, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • February 22, 2023
    ... ... law.” McGuire v. Lindsay , 496 S.W.3d 599, 607 ... (Mo.Ct.App. 2016) (citing CB3 Enterprises LLC v ... Damas , 415 S.W.3d 163, 166 (Mo Ct. App. 2013)) ... “The primary rule in interpreting a contract is to ... ascertain the parties' intent and ... ...
  • Riggs v. State Dep't of Soc. Servs., WD 77363
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 18, 2015
    ...not preserved for our review, as it exceeds the scope of the points relied on, and we decline to address it.CB3 Enters., LLC v. Damas, 415 S.W.3d 163, 169 n. 3 (Mo.App.W.D. 2013) ; Rule ...
  • Chadwick v. Huntoon
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 16, 2021
    ...E.D. 2018). The interpretation of an LLC's operating agreement is a question of law, which we review de novo. CB3 Enters. LLC v. Damas , 415 S.W.3d 163, 166 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).Discussion Appellants argue that Section 7.4(A) limits compensation to a member expelled without cause to 12 paym......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Operations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Limited Liability Company - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 1, 2022
    ...against an LLC. Ultimately the case was remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. CB3 Enterprises, LLC v. Damas , 415 S.W.3d 163. (Mo. App. 2013). The LLC filed a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the defendant and the defendant counterclaim for indemnification. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT