Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-98-07093/USCOURTS-caDC-98-07093-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Americable International, Inc.
Appellee
The Keefe Company
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 14, 1999 Decided August 15, 2000

No. 98-7093

The Keefe Company,

Appellant

v.

Americable International, Inc.,

Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 94cv01568)

Griffith L. Green argued the cause for appellant. With him

on the briefs were Thomas C. Green and Mark D. Hopson.

Robert P. Parker argued the cause for appellee. With him

on the brief was Gaela K. Gehring-Flores. Swati Agrawal

entered an appearance.

USCA Case #98-7093 Document #536859 Filed: 08/15/2000 Page 1 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Wald1, Silberman and Sentelle, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: Appellant Keefe Company filed this action

seeking recovery for installment payments arising from a

contract under which appellant allegedly assisted appellee

Americable in the obtaining of contracts for the provision of

cable service to government installations. The district court

granted summary judgment in favor of the defense on two

theories: invalidity of the underlying contract, and the running of the statute of limitations. We have heretofore vacated the decision insofar as it was based on invalidity, and

certified a governing legal question on the statute of limitations theory to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

That court having ruled on the certified question, we vacate

the judgment of the district court as to a portion of appellant's claims and remand for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion and that of the District of Columbia Court of

Appeals.

Analysis

Except insofar as it is necessary to make our application of

the law understandable, we will not rehash the facts underlying this controversy as they are set forth in full in Keefe Co.

v. Americable Int'l, Inc., 169 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Taking the evidence as it appeared to the district judge on the

summary judgment motion, Americable breached the agreement between the parties in 1988 by its failure to make both

one-time and monthly installment payments due under the

agreement. Keefe did not bring this action until 1994. Americable argued, and the district court held, that the threeyear statute of limitations had run on all of Keefe's claims,

holding that a breach of the contract as a whole had occurred

with the first nonpayment and repudiation by appellee.

Keefe argued, both before the district court and on appeal,

that its early claims might be time-barred, but that those that

were due within three years next preceding its filing of this

__________

1 Judge Wald was on the original panel but had left the court by

the time this matter was decided and therefore did not participate

in this decision.

action were still viable. Everyone agrees that the law of the

District of Columbia governs. It is well established that we

treat the District of Columbia as a state for purposes of the

Erie Doctrine, Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct.

817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra

Int'l Banking Corp., 62 F.3d 1454, 1458 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

(citing Lee v. Flintkote Co., 593 F.2d 1275, 1278-80 (D.C. Cir.

1979)). We therefore consulted the precedent established by

the highest court of the District of Columbia, that is its Court

of Appeals, but found none on point. We therefore certified

to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals the governing

question:

Under District of Columbia law, and upon the facts

described in this opinion, when parties have entered into

a contract in which payment is due on the first of each

USCA Case #98-7093 Document #536859 Filed: 08/15/2000 Page 2 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

month, calculated as a percentage of the promisor's

revenues from a specific service already rendered by the

promissee, does the limitation period begin to run separately on each missed payment, as is generally the case

with installment contracts, or, does repudiation or breach

of the contract as a whole trigger a single limitations

period?

Keefe Co. v. Americable Int'l, Inc., 169 F.3d 34, 40 (D.C. Cir.

1999). On July 13, 2000, the Court of Appeals published an

opinion, Keefe Co. v. Americable Int'l, Inc., 2000 WL 963356

(D.C. 2000), carefully considering the certified question and

determined that the statute of limitations on each of the

payments due under the contract ran separately, and that

therefore, "the statute of limitations does not bar Keefe's

action to recover installment payments that accrued within

three years prior to the filing of the action." Id. at *9.

As we noted above, the controlling question is within the

jurisdiction of the court of the District. That court has

spoken. Therefore, we vacate the district court's judgment in

favor of the defendant/appellee, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and that of the District

of Columbia Court of Appeals.

So ordered.

USCA Case #98-7093 Document #536859 Filed: 08/15/2000 Page 3 of 3