2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-13-2009 

# R C B eeson Inc v

. C o c a C ol a C o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4150

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " RC Be e s on Inc v

. C oca C o l a C o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1018. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1018NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 4150

_____________ R .C . B E E S O N , IN C ., A ppel l ant

v. C O C A C O L A C O M P A N Y ; JO S E P H E . S E A G R A M & S O N S , IN C .; P ERNOD RI CARD USA, LL C; DI AGEO NO RTH AM ERI CA, I NC.

A ppel l ees

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 07- cv- 4806) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erG . Sher i dan

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y10, 2009 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , A M B R O a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui t Judges . ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y13, 2009)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________Foreas e of r efe r ence , w e r efe rt o the Fi r s tA m ended Com pl ai ntas the “Com pl ai nt ”. 1 T he fol l ow i ng i nform at i on i s dr aw n fr om B ees on’ s Fi r s tA m ended Com pl ai ntand 2 d o c u m e n ts re f

e rr e d to th e re in . B u c k

v . H a m p to n T w p . Sc h . D ist. , 453 F. 3d 256, 260 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (“In e v alua ti n g a m o ti o n to d ism iss, w e m ayco n side r do cu m en ts th at are att ache d t o ors ubm i t t ed w i th the compl ai nt , . . . and anym att er s i ncorpor at ed byr efe r ence or i ntegr al t o the cl ai m , i t em s subj ectt o judi ci al no t i ce, m at t ers of p ub l i c record, orders , [a n d ] i tem s ap p ea ri n g in the rec o rd o f th e c ase . ”) (interna l qu o tat ion an d cit ati o n o m itted). S e a g ra m n o lo n g e r e x ists a s a c o rp o ra te e n tityb u t is a p re d e c e ss o r in in ter e st to 3 D iage o N o rth A m erican , Inc . (“D iage o ”) a n d P ern o d R icha rd U S A , L L C (“P ern o d ”). I n 2001, Seagr am’s as s et s w er e pur chas ed and di vi ded betw een thos e compani es , aft er w hi ch the C oca- C ol a C om panyw as gr ant ed a l i cens e t o s el l the Seagr am’s M i xer s l i ne. 2 J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . R . C . B ee so n , Inc . (“B ee so n ”) a p p ea ls th e o rde r of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eydi s m i s s i ng i t s C om pl ai nt as barr ed bythe appl i cabl e s i x- 1 y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . B ees on cont ends thatthe C our tw r ongl yconcl uded thatthe b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t an d u n

ju st e n ric h m e n t cla im s s e t f o rth in th e C o m p lain t ac c ru e d in 1 9 9 3 . I n o u rv i e w, h o we v e r , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r twa s c o rr e c t , a n d we wi l l th e r e f o r e a f f i r m. I . Backg r ound 2 I n 1982, B ees on w as r et ai ned as a cons ul t antbyJ os eph E. Seagr am & Sons, I nc. (“ S e a g ra m ” ) . W h ile in S e a g ra m ’s e m p lo y , B e e s o n d e v e lo p e d “ S e a g ra m M ix e rs ,”

3 v e rs io n s o f

v a ri o u s f

a m ilia r n o n -a lc o h o lic d ri n k s , lik e g in g e r a le a n d to n ic w a te r. Seagr am m ade thos e dr i nks the bas i s of a bus i nes s deal w i th C oca- C ol a B ot t l i ng C o m p a n yo f

N e w Y o rk , In c . (“C o k e N Y ” ), an e n tityd istin c t f ro m a p p e llee C o c a C o la C om pany . Seagr am and C okeN Y ent er ed i nt o a Tra demar k L i cens e A gr eement( the3

“ T L A ” ) w h ich g ra n ted C o k e N Y th e a b ili tyto b o th u se th e S e a g ra m tra d e m a rk s a n d se ll the M i xer s . T he TL A pr ovi ded thatC okeN Y “s hal l payt o Seagr am a r oy al tyof $. 05 per C as e ( ori t s equi val ent ) i n r es pectof anyand al l of the Li cens ed SoftD r i nks s ol d under the Li cens ed Tra demar ks . ” ( A pp. at73. ) I tal s o i ncl uded a pr ovi s i on s t at i ng that“[s ] uch r oy al tys hal l i ncr eas e ata compound r at e of t en per centpery ear . ” (I d. ) A l though B ees on w as nota partyt o the TL A , Seagr am had a s epar at e agr eement w i th B ees on ( the “1982 Let t erA gr eement ”) underw hi ch B ees on w as t o r ece i ve 20% of the roy al t i es r ecei ved byS eagram un der the T L A . T he 1 98 2 L et t er A greem ent al so re q u ire d th a t: in th e e v e n t th a t S e a g ra m a n d [ C o k e N Y ] a m e n d o r su p p lem e n t th e [ T L A ] in a m a n n e r w h ich m a ter iallyc h a n g e s th e a m o u n t o f th e ro y a lti e s p a y a b le to S e a g ra m p u rsu a n t to A rticle IX [ o f th e T L A ], S e a g ra m sh a ll n e g o tiate in good fai th w i th [B ees on] the amountof i nt er es tt o be r ece i ved by[B ees on] u n d e r th e a m e n d e d o r su p p lem e n ted L ice n se A g re e m e n t. (I d. at95- 96. ) B ees on and Seagr am si gned a s econd a gr eementi n 1987 ( the “1987 Let t er A g re e m e n t”) th a t ex ten d e d th e ter m s o f th e 1 9 8 2 L e tter A g re e m e n t to c o v e r sa les in C a n a d a a n d c o n f

irm e d th e te rm s f

o r s a le s in th e U n ite d S ta te s . T he TL A w as amended s ever al t i m es as the tr ademar k l i cens e w as as s i gned fr om o n e lice n se e to a n o th e r, b u t th e p ro v isio n s re g a rd in g th e a m o u n t o f ro y a lti e s a n d th e ra te atw hi ch theyi ncr eas ed r emai ned the s ame, unt i l February1, 1993. O n thatdat e, Seagr am am ended the TL A w i th i t s new l i cens ee Pr emi um B ever ages , I nc. T heyagr eed that, w hereas r oy al tyrat es had p revi ou sl yi ncreased ann uall yat10 % , the y earl yi ncrease4

w oul d thence for th be pegge d t o t he per cent age i ncr eas e i n the C ons um erPr i ce I ndex ( “C PI ”) fornon- al cohol i c beve r ages . W hi l e the part i es do nots peci fyhow thatchange aff ect ed the r oy al typaym ent s , i tpr es um abl yl ow er ed the amountr ece i ved bySeagr am and, atthe s ame t i m e, the paym ent s of Seagr am t o B ees on. I n der ogat i on of the 1982 and 1 9 8 7 L e tte r A g re e m e n ts , h o w e v e r, S e a g ra m d id n o t th e n re n e g o tia te its d e a l w ith B e e s o n . N ordi d i tannounce t o B ees on thatthe t erm s fores cal at i ng the r oy al tyr at e had be en change d. R ather , i tcont i nued s endi ng B ees on chec ks and quart er l ys t at ement s , though th e a m o u n ts w e re n o w c o n sis ten t w ith th e m o d if ied T L A . T h e c h a n g e in p a ym e n ts d id no tgo un no t i ced. A s B eeson a ckn ow l edg ed in i t s C om plai nt, i thad , si nce the m i d-199 0s,

“ o n a n o n g o in g b a sis , inq u ire d a b o u t, an d c h a llen g e d , the sta tem e n ts a n d a m o u n ts s e n t to itan d ask ed fo r ex p lana ti o n s as to , an d d ispu ted, th e c alcu lat ion s. ” (A p p . at 26 . ) I n A ugus tof 2000, Seagr am and B ees on exec ut ed a thi r d agr eement( the “2000 L ett erA gr eement ”) on t erm s cons i s t entw i th the fi r s ttw o l ett eragr eement s , pr ovi di ng B ees on w i th a 20% cutof the r oy al t i es r ece i ved bySeagr am. D ur i ng the cour s e of n e g o tiatio n s, S e a g ra m a sk e d B e e so n to a c k n o w led g e th a t S e a g ra m h a d sa tisf ied a ll o f its o b li g ati o n s to B ee so n as o f A u g u st 20 0 0 . B ee so n d ec li n ed . Itd id ac ce p t Se ag ram ’s m annerof r eport i ng buti tdemanded the r i ghtt o audi tSeagr am’s books t o ens ur e the ac cu rac yo f p ay m en ts. S ign ifi ca n tl y , S ea g ram insist ed , an d B ee so n ag ree d , that B ee so n ’s a u d iti n g rig h t w a s lim ited to “ tim e p e rio d s p e rm itt e d b ya p p lica b le la w ” a n d “ su b jec t toA gain for ease of refer ence, w e refert o ap pell ees, w ho are ei ther successor s i n int eres t 4 t o Seagr am, or , i n t he ca s e of Coca C ol a C om pany , a l i cens ee, as “Seagr am. ” T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1332. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 5 pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe C our t ’ s or der di s m i s s i ng the compl ai ntpur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) , and vi ew the fa ct s i n the lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le to a p p e lla n t a s th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y . McG overn v. C i t y of P h ila d e lp h ia , 5 5 4 F . 3 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 5 anyand al l defe ns es avai l abl e t o Seagr am underappl i cabl e l aw . ” (I d. at179. ) B ees on d i d n o ts e e k t o e x e r c i s e i t s a u d i tr i g h t s a n d c o n t i n u e d t o a c c e p tp a yme n t s f r o m S e a g r a m. O n O ct ober4, 2007, B ees on fi l ed thi s s ui t . Seagr am then moved t o di s m i s s the 4 C om pl ai nton t he bas i s thatB ees on’ s cl ai m s ar e t i m e barr ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our tagr eed, concl udi ng thatB ees on w as aw ar e thatSeagr am had fundam ent al l ym odi fi ed i t s deal i ngs w i th B ees on i n 1993, w hen i tbegan s endi ng B ees on chec ks i n a dec r eas ed amountbas ed o n th e n e w ly am e n d e d T L A . B e e so n , In c . v. C o c a -C o la e t. al. , 2008 W L 4447106, at*6 ( D . N . J . Sept . 26, 2008) . T he C our tconcl uded that , r atherthan t aki ng act i on, B ees on

“ id ly sto o d b y ” u n til 2 0 0 7 . I d. at*3. B ythen, the C our tdet erm i ned, the r el evants i x- y ear s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run and di s m i s s al of B ees on’ s s ui tw as appr opr i at e. B ees on t i m el yappea l ed. I I . D i s cus s i on 5 I n thi s di ver s i tyact i on, w e l ook t o the l aw s of N ew J er s ey , the forum i n w hi ch the D is tr ic t C o u rt s its , to d e te rm in e th e a p p lic a b le s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . See L a

ffer ty v . S t. R i el , 4 9 5 F . 3 d 7 2 , 7 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ [ A] f e d e r a l c o u r tmu s ta p p l yth e s u b s t a n t i v e l a ws o f it s fo rum stat e in d iversityac ti o n s an d thes e inc lud e state statutes o f li m it ati o n s. ”)6

(in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ). T h e p a rties d o n o t d isp u te th a t N e w Je rse ylaw p ro v id e s a six y e a r sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s “ f

o r re c o v e ryu p o n a c o n tra c tu a l cla im o r liab ili ty .” N .J. S tat. A nn. § 2A : 14- 1 ( W es t2000) . H ow ever , theydo di s put e the dat e byw hi ch anycl ai m of B e e so n ’s c o u ld h a v e a c c ru e d . S e a g ra m c o n ten d s th a t th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s b e g a n to run i n 1993, w hen i teff ect i vel yr epudi at ed the 1982 and 1987 Let t erA gr eement s by m a te ri a lly m o d if

y in g th e ro y a lty c a lc u la tio n a n d f a ilin g to th e n re n e g o tia te w ith B e e s o n . B ees on, on t he otherhand, cl ai m s thata new caus e of a ct i on acc rued w i th eac h new p a ym e n t b yS e a g ra m u n til B e e s o n “ d is c o v e re d ” S e a g ra m ’s b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t in 2 0 0 6 . A s di d the D i s tr i ctC our t , w e agr ee w i th Seagr am and fi nd B ees on’ s ar gum ent unper s uas i ve. I n det erm i ni ng the ac crual dat e of a cl ai m underan i ns t al l m entcontr act , N ew J er s eycourt s have r ecogni zed thata new cl ai m ar i s es foreac h m i s s ed paym entor u n d e rp a ym e n t o r o th e r f a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e c o n tr a c t te rm s . See M at t erof Li qui dat i on of

I nt egr i t y I ns . C o. , 685 A . 2d 1286, 1298 ( N . J . 1996) ( “[I ] n an i ns t al l m ent co n tr ac t, a n ew ca u se o f a cti o n arises o n the d ate o n w h ich e ac h p ay m en t i s m issed . ”) (c iti n g 4 C o rb in o n C o n tra c ts § 9 5 1 (1 9 5 1 & S u p p . 1 9 9 4 )); Me tro m e d ia C o . v. H a rtz Mountai n A s s ocs . , 655 A . 2d 1379, 1381 ( N . J . 1995) . H ow ever , an ac tof r epudi at i on tr ig g e rs a p la in tif

f ’s a b ility to s u e f

o r a b re a c h a s to th e m is s e d p a ym e n t. Me tro m e d ia , 655 A . 2d at1381 ( s t at i ng thatw her e ther e i s a cont i nui ng br eac h of an i ns t al l m ent contr act , “abs enta r epudi at i on, a pl ai nt i ff mays ue foreac h br eac h onl yas i toccur s , and7

the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons begi ns t o run atthatt i m e”) . R epudi at i on “ent ai l s a s t at ementor

‘ vol unt aryaff

i r m at i ve ac t ’ i ndi cat i ng thatthe pr om i s or‘ w i l l comm i ta br eac h’ w hen per form ance becomes due. ” Fr anconi a A s s ocs . v. U ni t ed Stat es , 536 U . S. 129, 143 ( 2002) ( quot i ng R es t at ement( Second) of C ontr act s § 250 ( 1981) ) . A s i ngl e i nfr act i on of contr actual obl i gat i ons , s uch as a mi s s ed paym ent , i s i ns uffi ci entt o cons t i tut e a “ t ot al b rea ch ” o f th e a g ree m en t un less ac co m p an ied b yan an ti cipa toryrep u d iat ion o f f u ture per form ance . C orbi n on C ontr act s § 954. I n otherw or ds , a combi nat i on of an a ct d e lib e ra telyre p u d iatin g th e a g re e m e n t an d a n a c t in d ica tin g to th e n o n -b re a c h in g p a rty thatanyfutur e per form ance ei therw i l l notoccurorw i l l notbe i n compl i ance w i th the c o n tr a c t te rm s c o m m e n c e s th e ru n n in g o f th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . C

f . i d. ( not i ng that w here fai l ure of p erform ance is accom pan i ed b yanti ci patoryrepudiat i on , there i s a “‘total’ brea ch , justi fy ing im m ed iat e a cti o n fo r th e re m ed ies ap p rop ri ate the reto” ). Seagr am’s fai l ur e t o r enegot i at e i t s agr eementw i th B ees on aft erchangi ng the T L A , and ther ebychangi ng the paym ent s i tw oul d m ake t o B ees on, w as a mat er i al br eac h of the 1982 and 1987 Let t erA gr eement s . T he r es ul t i ng di m i ni s hed paym ent s t o B ees on, w hi ch B ees on r ecogni zed w er e i ncons i s t entw i th the contr act , w er e ef fec t i ve not i ce that Seagr am di d noti nt end t o compl yw i th i t s obl i gat i ons , ei thert o r enegot i at e w i th B ees on ort o m ake pa ym ent s as expec t ed underthe t erm s of the 1982 and 1987 Let t er A g re e m e n ts . See Mi l l erv. For t is B enef i t s I ns . C o. , 475 F. 3d 516 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( fi ndi ng a “ c lea r re p u d iatio n ” u n d e r E R IS A w h e n b e n e f icia ryre c e iv e d u n d e rp a ym e n t o f b e n e f its8

f o r se v e n tee n y e a rs.) In sh o rt, th e o b v io u s c h a n g e a n d th e re f u sa l to re n e g o tiate , d e sp ite B ees on’ s i nqui r i es aboutthe cha nge, cons t i tut ed a r epudi at i on of the 1982 and 1987 L e tte r A g re e m e n ts . C

f. i d. ( “[Pl ai nt i ff’ s ] caus e of a ct i on t o adj us tbenef i t s acc rued upon h is in iti a l re c e ip t o f

th e e rro n e o u slyc a lcu late d a w a rd . T h e a w a rd h e b e g a n re c e iv in g in 1 9 8 7 c o n stitu ted a re p u d iatio n o f h is rig h t to g re a ter p a ym e n t.. . . T h is re p u d iatio n sh o u ld have be en cl eart o hi m upon i ni t i al r ece i ptof paym enti n 1987– m onthl ychec ks bas ed on a s i m pl e ca l cul at i on of s i xtyper centof hi s s al arys houl d have a l ert ed hi m thathe w as b eing u n d erp aid.”) T h a t B e e so n u n d e rsto o d th a t S e a g ra m h a d re p u d iate d th o se L e tter A g re e m e n ts is demonstr at ed bythe negot i at i ons i thad w i th Seagr am i n 2000. T he 2000 Let t er A gr eementevi dence s Seagr am’s focus on the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he part i es agr eed on a u d it righ ts s u b

jec t to “ tim e p e rio d s p e rm itt e d b ya p p lica b le la w ” a n d “ a n ya n d a ll d e f e n se s a v a ilab le to S e a g ra m u n d e r a p p lica b le la w .” (A p p . at 1 7 9 .) E v e n w ith th a t, ho w ever, B eeson d i d n ot purs ue an ycl ai m s und er the n ew l yrevi sed con tract . Itcho se i nst ead to do no thing t o en force t he ri gh t s i tno w i nsi st s i thas. B e e so n c o n ten d s th a t, as th e n o n -b re a c h in g p a rty , ith a d th e o p tio n to e ith e r w a it t o fi l e sui tun t i l the ti m e for S eagram ’s perform ance p assed or t o tr eatthe repu diat i on as a br eac h. I tas s ert s thateac h i ns t al l m entpaym entcarr i es w i th i tSeagr am’s cont i nui ng o b lig a tio n to m a k e p a ym e n ts in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e 1 9 8 2 a n d 1 9 8 7 L e tter A g re e m e n ts and t o negot i at e fol l ow i ng anym at er i al change i n the TL A . B utthatar gum entm i s s es t heW e al s o not e an ope n ques t i on as t o w hetherB ees on’ s fai l ur e t o as s erti t s r i ght s pr i or 6 t o ordur i ng the cour s e of ne got i at i ons overthe 2000 Let t erA gr eementcons t i tut es an a b a n d o n m e n t o f

a n yc la im it m ig h t h a v e h a d . See H os p. C om put erSys . , I

nc. v. Stat en I s land H os p. , 788 F. Supp. 1351, 1359 ( D . N . J . 1992) ( fi ndi ng pl ai nt i ff e s t opped fr om as s ert i ng br eac h of contr actcl ai m w her e pl ai nt i ff a cce pt ed def i ci entper form ance under an agr eement“w i th ful l know l edge of the l evel of per form ance i tcoul d expec t , ” ther eby ind u cing the d ef

en d an t “t o p rov ide f

u rth er se rvice s tha t i t i n tend ed to later asse rtw ere d ef ec ti v e” ). 9 m ark, beca us e i ti gnor es thatSeagr am’s per form ance , i ncl udi ng es peci al l yi t s obl i gat i on to re n e g o tia te w ith B e e s o n , b e c a m e d u e im m e d ia te ly u p o n its m o d if ic a tio n o f

th e T L A . W hi l e the s ubs equentunderpaym ent s putB ees on on not i ce of the br eac h and w er e partof th e f a llo u t f ro m it, th e yd id n o t g iv e B e e s o n th e o p p o rt u n ity to d e la ya c tio n o n its c la im . I f w e w er e t o vi ew Seagr am’s obl i gat i on t o r enegot i at e fol l ow i ng a mat er i al change i n t he T L A as s om ethi ng exi s t i ng i n perpetui ty , as B ees on s ugges t s , the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w oul d be r obbed of meani ng. 6 A llo w in g B e e so n to p u rsu e its c laim s a f ter sta n d in g id le f

o r o v e r a d e c a d e w o u ld u n d e rm in e N e w Je rse y ’s s tatu te o f lim itatio n s. T h e D istric t C o u rt th u s c o rre c tly d e t e r mi n e d th a tBe e s o n ’ s c l a i ms a r e b a rr e d a s u n t i me l yu n d e rNe w J e r s e yl a w. I I I . C oncl usi on F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m .