Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02945/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02945-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tf'nth Ci.rrui, UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JAN 2 - 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., a California corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

TOMBS & SONS, INC. a Kansas 

LEROY C. TOMBS, 

corporation;) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-2945 

(D.C. No. 83-4231) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Integrity Management International (IMI), the second lowest 

bidder on a small business set aside contract for food services at 

the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York (West 

Point contract), brought this action against the successful 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Ci r. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2945 Document: 01019958596 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 1 
bidder, Tombs & Sons, Inc. Following a be nch trial, the district 

court entered judgment in IMI's favor based on the principle of 

unjust enrichment as recognized under Kansas law. IMI has 

appealed, challenging the district court's (1) calculation of the 

amount IMI would have received had it been awarded the West Point 

contract, i.e., lost profits, (2) refusal to allow recovery of 

prejudgment interest or certain expenses, and (3) rejection of a 

claim for tortious interference with prospective business 

advantage. 

We have reviewed the record on appeal and IMI's appellate 

brief, and we concur in the district court's disposition of each 

of the issues now raised by IMI. Accordingly, the judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons set forth 

in the district court's memorandum and order dated June 20, 1988, 

and the district court's order dated August 19, 1988. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2945 Document: 01019958596 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 2