Entm't USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Commc'ns, Inc.
Decision Date | 20 March 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 1:12–CV–116.,1:12–CV–116. |
Citation | 93 F.Supp.3d 915 |
Parties | ENTERTAINMENT USA, INC., Plaintiff, v. MOOREHEAD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Jason M. Kuchmay, Carson Boxberger LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff.
Karen T. Moses, Kevin J. Mitchell, Steven L. Jackson, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the: (1) Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Entertainment USA, Inc., on August 18, 2014 (DE# 86); (2) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Moorehead Communications, Inc., on August 18, 2014 (DE# 90); (3) Motion to File Exhibits in Opposition to Summary Judgment Under Seal filed by Defendant on September 15, 2014 (DE# 97); and (4) Motion to Strike filed by Defendant on September 29, 2014 (DE# 99). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE# 86) is DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE# 90) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, Defendant's Motion to File Exhibits in Opposition to Summary Judgment Under Seal (DE# 97) is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion to Strike (DE# 99) is DENIED AS MOOT.
For the purposes of the parties' motions for summary judgment, the facts below are material and undisputed:
Plaintiff Entertainment USA, Inc. is one of several companies doing business as One Wireless World (“OWW”). OWW was a multi-carrier for wireless services including AT & T, Nextel, Sprint, and T–Mobile, until the spring of 2006, when OWW began working exclusively with Sprint. OWW served the central Pennsylvania area, and had a significant presence in that area at that time. Chau Nguyen (“Chau”) was CEO of each of the companies doing business as OWW. Chau and his brother, Chinh Nguyen (“Chinh”), co-owned these companies until Chinh sold his interest to Chau in January 2007.
Defendant Moorehead Communications, Inc., (“Moorehead”) is a master agent for Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), which signs up individuals and entities to sell Verizon cellular phone services as a sub-agent or sub-dealer of Moorehead. Originally located in Indiana, Moorehead has expanded to numerous states throughout the country. Moorehead began expanding into the central Pennsylvania area in the early 2000s. By 2005, Moorehead had signed up two sub-dealers by the names of “Kimmel's 1–Stop” and “Quick Cell Phone.”
In an effort to expand Moorehead's presence in central Pennsylvania, Moorehead entered into an agreement with OWW for referral fees (“Referral Agreement”) in January 2006. The two-page Referral Agreement states in large part:
(DE# 95–1 at 2–3.) Larry Myers (“Myers”), Moorehead's Vice President of the Dealer Division at the time, drafted the Referral Agreement. Chau negotiated the Referral Agreement on behalf of OWW.
In December 2006, Moorehead employee Erik Schlesselman (“Schlesselman”) communicated with OWW employee Jason Annibali via email regarding a list of specific OWW locations referred to Moorehead by OWW (“Annibali Email”). (DE # 88–2 at 26–42.) At some point, OWW also provided Schlesselman with a list of dealer locations that OWW was terminating because those dealers did not want to sell exclusively for Sprint and OWW (“Term List”). (DE# 89–3 at 20–22, DE# 87 at 48–49.) Chau testified that he referred individuals to Moorehead during several meetings with Schlesselman by displaying lists of individuals' names on projection screens and computer monitors. (DE# 89–3 at 30.) He also testified that he shared OWW's dealers and their credit terms with Schlesselman. (Id. ) Chinh testified that OWW gave Moorehead access to its vice-presidents, the names of all of its people, and its business model. (DE# 89–4 at 20.)
In 2007, Chau purchased Chinh's interests in the OWW companies, and formed a new company named “OWW Consulting, Inc.” In mid–2007, OWW Consulting hired one of Chinh's companies, “ChinhCo Incorporated,” to perform consulting services. According to the Consulting Services Agreement, ChinhCo's services were (1) personnel management, (2) management of certain sub-agent relationships, and (3) leasing. (DE# 95–7 at 11.) OWW claims that it paid ChinhCo for consulting services in 2007, but provides no proof of payment.
By January 2008, OWW's relationship with Sprint had terminated. Chau created a new entity, “United Consulting,” and Chinh operated his own company named “Wireless Advisors, Inc.” Neither United Consulting nor Wireless Advisors is an OWW company.
In January 2008, the OWW Consulting's Vice President of Operations emailed a location to Moorehead, and Chinh provided Moorehead with a spreadsheet of OWW locations. In February 2008, Chau proposed a new referral agreement with Moorehead and United Consulting, which included, among other things, referring “quality exclusive agents” to Moorehead. No agreement was reached.
OWW asserts that it referred locations, individuals, and entities to Moorehead in the Referral Agreement, the Annibali email, the Term List, and/or in verbal communications with Moorehead. Some of these individuals include:
Between 2006 and mid–2008, Moorehead paid OWW referral fees totaling approximately...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Entm't USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Commc'ns, Inc.
...that Indiana contract law applied.The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in 2014. Entertainment USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Communications, Inc. , 93 F.Supp.3d 915, 922 (N.D. Ind. 2015). Judge Lozano resolved several of the disputed issues on summary judgment. He decided that the a......
-
Marion T LLC v. Formall Inc.
...Duct need to be determined by weighing extrinsic evidence and assessing credibility of witnesses. See Entm't USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Commc'ns, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 3d 915, (N.D. Ind. 2015) ("[I]f language of the contract is ambiguous, or if technical words, local phrases or terms of art are use......
-
Entm't United States, Inc. v. Moorehead Commc'ns, Inc., CAUSE NO. 1:12-cv-116 RLM
...duration of the referral agreement, abandonment, damages, and the equitable claim for an accounting. Entertainment USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Commc'ns, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 3d 915 (N.D. Ind. 2015). Extrinsic evidence -- evidence outside the four corners of the contract-- is admissible to prove mea......
-
Bowers v. Anthem, Inc.
...plain and ordinary meaning of the terms and enforce the contract according to its express terms. Entertainment USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Comm'ns, Inc. , 93 F. Supp. 3d 915, 923 (N.D. Ind. 2015).The key question is whether Anthem terminated Bowers "for performance." The Agreement is unambiguous......