Pavone v. Kirke

• Decision Date: 09 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–0222.,09–0222.
• Parties: John P. PAVONE and Signature Management Group, L.L.C., Appellants, v. Gerald M. KIRKE and Wild Rose Clinton, L.L.C., Appellees.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

807 N.W.2d 828

John P. PAVONE and Signature Management Group, L.L.C., Appellants,

v.Gerald M. KIRKE and Wild Rose Clinton, L.L.C., Appellees.

No. 09–0222.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 9, 2011.

Timothy S. Bottaro and Amanda Van Wyhe of Vriezelaar, Tigges, Edgington, Bottaro, Boden & Ross, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellants.

Mark McCormick, David M. Swinton, and Margaret C. Callahan of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, and Brent B. Green and Mariclare Thinnes Culver of Duncan, Green, Brown & Langeness, Des Moines, for appellees.

WIGGINS, Justice.

In this appeal, the parties to a contract contend the district court erred when it granted the opposing parties' motion for summary judgment by finding the opposing parties repudiated the contract and claim preclusion barred the bringing of this action. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's ruling. We then granted further review. On further review, we find the district court was correct in dismissing the action. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals and the judgment of the district court.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On October 22, 2004, John Pavone and Signature Management Group, L.L.C. (hereinafter collectively referred to as SMG) and Gerald M. Kirke and Wild Rose Entertainment, L.L.C. (hereinafter collectively referred to as Wild Rose) executed a document entitled “Agreement,” which, in part, attempted to delineate the parties' relationship with regard to future casino projects in Iowa. Paragraph five of the agreement deals with future management opportunities and provides:

5. Future Casino Development Opportunities.

A. First Look and Good Faith Negotiation as to Future Casino Development and Management Opportunities.

i. If Wild Rose has the opportunity to develop or operate any other casino in Iowa, Wild Rose will use good faith best efforts to involve SMG when the opportunity is first known, and to negotiate in good faith a Management Agreement consistent with the terms outlined in Wild Rose's gaming development agreement with the City of Ottumwa, Iowa. It being understood that the award of any management agreement must also be satisfactory to third party community and non-profit organizations. And it being further understood that any casino in the Central Iowa area will likely require the involvement of a management company, other than SMG.

(Emphasis added.)

On May 11, 2005, the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (IRGC) awarded Wild Rose a gaming license to develop a casino in Emmetsburg. On May 24 Wild Rose sent a letter to SMG (hereinafter referred to as the “termination letter”) allegedly terminating the October agreement and any future relationship between the parties. This letter stated:

This letter is to formally notify you that the Agreement dated October 22, 2004 (the “Agreement”) between Signature Management Group, L.L.C. (“Signature”) and Wild Rose Entertainment, L.L.C., terminated pursuant to its terms effective May 11, 2005. Upon receipt of a final invoice from Signature, Wild Rose will pay the agreed consulting fees and expenses through May 11, 2005.

Since the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission did not award a license to Wild Rose for the Ottumwa project, and the referendums were defeated in Warren, Madison and Dallas counties last November, the contingencies set forth in the Agreement unfortunately were not satisfied.

We thank you for the consulting services Signature provided to Wild Rose and sincerely regret we were unable to realize our respective expectations under the Agreement.

The attorney for Wild Rose, Jim Krambeck, also e-mailed a copy of the termination letter to SMG's attorney, Ryan Ross, that same day. Ross responded via e-mail asking Krambeck, “Does this mean Wild Rose has ended negotiations as to the Management Agreement/Buy-out, or are you still waiting to talk with your client later this week? Please let me know so that I can advise Signature accordingly.” Krambeck responded:

Ryan, As reported in my e-mail message earlier today I will meet with my clients as soon as they are available to discuss their thoughts concerning the future relationship, if any, with John Pavone. Following that meeting I will be in contact with you.

In response to your 12:10 p.m. e-mail, I strongly disagree with your characterization of the facts, the issues & the position of Wild Rose in this matter. A point by point rebuttal is not appropriate at this time, however, to claim that Wild Rose “walked out of the negotiations” is simply not true. The fact is that we thought we were close to an agreement on the Ottumwa project when your client refused to agree after you told me you thought we had a deal & then sought to revisit issues that had been previously resolved. Unfortunately, the parties simply were unable to reach agreement. I am still willing to work on finding common ground but if this dispute is to be resolved, your adversarial & inflammatory e-mail messages will need to be curtailed.

The next day, Ross e-mailed Krambeck stating,

Jim: Thank you for clarifying that negotiations continue. I will wait to hear back from you after you speak with your clients. Signature remains prepared to continue negotiating the terms of the Management Agreement as required by the October 22, 2004 agreement.

There is no evidence Wild Rose responded to this last e-mail or that any further negotiations occurred. On July 12, 2005, SMG sent a proposed management agreement for the Emmetsburg casino to Wild Rose, requesting that Wild Rose execute the agreement and return it to SMG. There is no evidence Wild Rose responded, and the parties never executed a management agreement for the Emmetsburg casino.

On March 31, 2006, SMG filed a civil action against Wild Rose (hereinafter referred to as the “Emmetsburg action”) alleging, in part, Wild Rose breached the management agreement contained in paragraph 3A of the October agreement for the Emmetsburg casino and failed to negotiate in good faith a management agreement for the Emmetsburg casino in violation of paragraph 5A. On August 20, 2007, a jury trial commenced, which resulted in a jury verdict finding Wild Rose breached paragraphs 3A and 5A of the October agreement. The jury awarded SMG $10 million in damages. In Pavone v. Kirke, 801 N.W.2d 477 (Iowa 2011) (Pavone I), we affirmed the verdict.

During the course of the Emmetsburg action, on June 8, 2006, the IRGC awarded Wild Rose a gaming license to develop a casino in Clinton. Wild Rose did not contact or negotiate a management agreement with SMG regarding management of the Clinton casino. On August 15, 2008, SMG filed a separate action against Wild Rose Clinton, L.L.C., a wholly owned subsidiary of Wild Rose Entertainment, L.L.C. (hereinafter referred to as the “Clinton action”). ¹ SMG alleged Wild Rose breached paragraph 5A of the October agreement by failing to negotiate in good faith with SMG for the management of the Clinton casino. Paragraph 5A of the October agreement was litigated in the Emmetsburg action. Wild Rose denied the allegations in the petition and asserted a number of affirmative defenses.

Wild Rose filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the doctrine of claim preclusion barred SMG's current claim as a matter of law. The district court granted Wild Rose's motion for summary judgment, concluding the doctrine of claim preclusion barred SMG's current claim because both actions involved the same agreement and provision, the parties were the same in both actions, and there was ample time for SMG to seek damages relating to the Clinton casino in the Emmetsburg action. Thus, the district court held, “Plaintiffs have split their claim for breach of the agreement; therefore, this case is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.”

SMG filed a notice of appeal. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Wild Rose. The court of appeals concluded the termination letter was a definite and unequivocal repudiation of the entire October agreement, which Wild Rose never nullified or retracted. Thus, “the repudiation constituted a total breach and required SMG to seek damages for all remaining rights of performance under the contract in the first lawsuit.” Accordingly, the court of appeals held that because SMG had already brought the Emmetsburg action, it was precluded from seeking damages for any remaining rights of performance under the October agreement. Subsequently, SMG filed an application for further review, which we granted.

II. Scope of Review.

“We review a district court decision granting or denying a motion for summary judgment for correction of errors at law.” Wallace v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Dirs., 754 N.W.2d 854, 857 (Iowa 2008) (citing Iowa R.App. P. 6.4, now rule 6.907). If there is no genuine issue of material fact after a review of the entire record, summary judgment is appropriate. Stew-Mc Dev., Inc. v. Fischer, 770 N.W.2d 839, 844 (Iowa 2009). Accordingly, “[t]his court reviews a summary judgment to determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issues of material fact and established entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law.” C & J Vantage Leasing Co. v. Outlook Farm Golf Club, LLC, 784 N.W.2d 753, 756 (Iowa 2010). In performing this review, we examine the record in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine if the moving party has met its burden. Id.; accord Wallace, 754 N.W.2d at 857 (stating the nonmoving party is afforded the benefit of every legitimate inference that can be reasonably deduced from the record).

III. Discussion and Analysis.

A. Repudiation. SMG claims a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Wild Rose repudiated the October agreement. It further claims if there is no genuine issue of fact as to repudiation, a genuine issue of fact exists as...