Case ID: so2d_869/html/0774-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LOCKHEED MARTIN, Appellant, v. Anthony J. GERACE, Frank Casey, et al., Appellee.
    No. 5D03-489.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    April 16, 2004.
    Sylvia H. Walbolt, Matthew J. Coniglia-ro and Rachel A.. Ramsey, of Carlton Fields, P.A., St. Petersburg, and Leslie Joughin, III, Wesley D. Tibbals and James W. Seegers, of Akerman Senterfitt, Tampa, for Appellant.
    Mark A. Ash and Zebulon D. Anderson, of Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Darryl M. Bloodworth and Nichole M. Mooney, of Dean, Mead, Egerton, Blood-worth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees, Anthony J. Gerace and Tompkins Associates, Inc.
    Hal K. Litchford and Scott K. Lippman, of Litchford & Christopher, Orlando, for Appellees, Tompkins Associates, Inc.
   PER CURIAM.

This summary judgment case is somewhat unusual because of its size. There are ninety-four volumes of record and dozens of depositions and affidavits. In all this, however, we agree with the conclusion of the trial court that there is simply no evidence to support a legally sufficient claim of tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy or unjust enrichment against any defendant. And the evidence of any breach of Mr. Gerace’s duty of loyalty to Lockheed Martin, such as his involvement in the September 30, 2000, meeting is, at best, de minimis. Entry of summary final judgment was proper.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.