FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UL Y 24, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1153 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-01038 -CV -F- N MA C E as t, L L C, aL im ite d L ia bil ity Co rp or at ion , Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us S H O N EY ’S , aLi mi t e dLi ab i l i t y C o mp a n y, D ef en da nt- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (J ul y 24 , 200 8) Be fo re BL A CK , CA RN E S, a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. COX , C ircuit Judg e: T his div er sity

c as e inv olv es a co m

m er ci al re al es ta te le as e an d a pr opos al by the a ssi gne e of th at le as e to s ubl ea se the r ea l e sta te to a thi rd pa rty . A sig nif

ic an t iss ue i n t h i s c a s e a r i s e s o u t o f a c o n s e n t c l au s e i n t h e a s s i g n m e n t , w h i c h g i v e s th eSho ne y ’s wa s a Te nn e sse e c or

po ratio n in 1 97 9. I t ha s si nc e c onve rt e d to a lim ite d li a

bil ity 1 company , and now ope rate s under the nam e S h o l an d , L L C. W e continue to r efe r to this entity as Shoney ’s. 2 assigno r “ sole discretion” to withho ld consent to the assignee’ s propos ed sublease. W e cer tify this iss ue to the Alabam a Suprem e Court because it is disposi tive of part of th e cas e an d Al ab am a la w is un cl ear. I. Background The f acts of this case ar e re latively sim ple and generally

not in d i s p u t e. In A pr il 1979 , Sh one y ’ s, In c. , e nte re d in to a gr ound le as e as te na nt o f ce rt ai n pr ope rty 1 loc at ed in Mon tgo m er

y , A la ba m a, a t an init ia l an nual r en t of $16 , 000. 00. ( R. 1- 16, P o w e r s Af

f
. , Ex
. A a t2 ¶

4
. ) S h o n e y’s l a t e r

c o n s t r u c t e dab u i l d i n g o n t h e p r o p e rt y. InF eb ru ar

y 200 2, S hone y ’ s a ssi gne d it s r igh ts unde r the gr ound le as e to M A C E as t, L L C, w hic h is in th e co mm erci al r ea l e sta te bus ine ss. ( R. 1- 43, P l. ’ s E x. 5) ( the

“ A ssi gnm en t A gr ee m en t” ). MA C E as t a ss um ed S hone y ’ s ob lig at ion s un de r the ground lease, the rent for which by then had increased to $21,120.00. (R. 1-16, Pow ers A ff
. , E x. A a t 2 ¶ 4. ) P ar ag ra ph 1 9 of the A ssi gnm en t A gree m en t c ont ai ns the fo llo w ing pr ovi sio n: A ssi gne e [M A C E as t] sha ll not e nte r int o a ny

a ssi gnm en t or

sub le as e of an y portio n of

the P ro pert y or the im

pr ove m en ts the re on w ith out the prio r w ri tte n c onse nt o f A ssi gnor [ Sh one y ’ s]
. . . w hic h A ssi gnor [S hone y ’ s] m ay

w ith hol d init s so le dis cr et ion
.3

(R.1 -4 3, Pl .’ s Ex . 5, at8 ¶ 1 9) (“ Para gr ap h 1 9” ). InApr il 2005 , MA C E as t m ad e a non- bin din g pr opos a l t o su ble as e the pr ope rty to City Caf é D iners (“ City

Caf é”), at a “ Minim

um Annual Rent” of $77,350.00 per y ear f orth e fi rs t fi ve y ear s . (R.1 -4 3, Pl .’ s Ex . 18 .) The p ro po sa l d es ig na te d M AC E as t a s th e landl or d, a nd “ Ci ty Ca fé D ine rs , or

e nti ty to be sa tis fa ct or

y to L an dlo rd ”
as the te na nt. T he pr opos al wa s “ subj ec t t o th e pr ovi sio ns o f the or igi na l G ro und L ea se a nd Assi gn m en t and A ssu m pti on o f L ea se , a nd m ay

r equir e the appr ova l of third parties und er those agree m ents.” ( Id
. at 2.) Jimm

y T se lio s, w ho s ign ed

the pr opos al on b eh al f of Ci ty Ca fé , ag re ed to pe rs ona lly guarante e the pr opos ed sub le as e fo r fi ve y ears . In May 200 5 , M AC Ea s t inform ed Shoney ’ s in writing that it had foun d an

“ operator” interested in subleasing th e property
. MAC Ea st in cluded in th is letter fi nanc ia l st ate m en ts o f the guaranto r, T se lio s, a nd o f tw o si m ilar ope ra tio ns d oin g busi ne ss a s “ Ci ty

Ca fé D ine r. ” (R
. 1- 43, P l. ’ s Ex. 12 , at 5, 7. ) MA C E as t
ac know le dge d th at the A ssi gnm en t A gr ee m en t r equir ed it to obt ai n S hone y ’ s c onse nt be fo re it c oul d su ble as e the pr ope rty . L at er tha t m onth, MA C E as t su bm itt ed to Shoney ’ s a proposed s u b l ea se betwe en MAC Ea st and an entitycalled Pam E nte rp ri se s, I nc . ( R. 1- 43, P l. ’ s E x. 9. ) U nde r the pr opos al , Pam E nte rp ri se s ha d 12 0MA C Ea st a lso so ug ht a de c larator y jud g me nt c ha lle ng ing Sho ne y ’s a tte mpt to c on dit ion

its 2 consent to sublease on the re ceipt of a dditional pay ments. The par

ties ag re e t h i s cl aim is moot beca use Shoney ’s conse nted to MAC East’s subleasin g t h e premises in June 2006 to a differ ent subtenant. On Marc h 12, 2008, this court rema nded the c ase to the district c ourt for the purpose of 3 deter mining whe ther diver sity

jurisdiction ex isted. The district cour t, on the parties ’ joint stipul ation of the fa cts, deter

mined that complete diver sity of citizenship ex ists between the pa rties. (R.1-55.) MA C Ea st’ s mo tio n w a s “ pa rt ia l” be c a

us e it s ou g ht a

ru lin g on lia bil ity , n ot d ama g e s. 4 4 da y s to ope n a nd beg in ope ra tin g a res taur an t— pr es um ab ly a Ci ty

Ca fé D ine r. A t the
ex pirati on o f thi s pe ri od, a ro und N ove m be r 15, 200 5, r en t w oul d be co m e due a t a
m inim um annual rate of $77,350.00 for the f irst five y ears. (R. 1-14, E x. C. ) InJul y 200 5, S hone y ’ s no tif

ie d M A C E as t tha t i t w as unw ill ing to co nse nt t o the sub le as e unl es s M A C E as t pa id Sh one y ’ s $70, 000 an d ne got ia te d it s r el ea se f ro m the gr ound le as e, or pa id Sh one y ’ s $90, 000, in w hic h ca se Sh one y ’ s w oul d rem ai n lia ble on the gr ound le as e. (R
. 1- 14, Surl es A ff
. , at 2 & E x. A
. ) MA C E as t r ef use d th e te rm s of S hone y ’ s c onse nt and n ev er e xe cu te d a subl ea se w ithCi ty Ca fé
. MA C E as t di d n ot su bl eas e th e p ro pe rty un ti l J un e 2 00 6. InS ep te m

be r 2005 , MA C E as t f

iled a com

pla int in A la ba m a sta te c ourt f

or br e a c h o f t h e A s s i g n m e n tA g r e e m e n ta n df o r t o rt i o u s i n t e r f

e r e n c e w i t h b usi ne ss
re la tio ns. Sh on ey ’s r em ove d th e ca se to fe de ra l c ourt a lle gin g di ve rs ity of 2 ci tiz en shi p j ur isd ic tio n. MA C E as t f ile d a Par tia l Moti on for Su m

m ar y Jud gm en t, 3 4 and Shoney ’ s filed a Moti on for Summ ary Judg m ent. On Janu ary 8, 20 07, t he district5

co urt gr an te d M A C E as t’ s m oti on and d en ie d S hone y ’ s m oti on. T he c ourt f ir st h el d tha t S honey’ s brea ch ed

the A ssi gnm en t A gr ee m en t by unr ea sona

bly r ef usi ng t o
co nse nt t o MA C E as t’ s pr opos ed sub le as e. T he c ourt sa id tha t a lth oughthe A ssi gnm en t A gr ee m en t gave S hone y ’ s th e “ sol e dis cr et ion ” to co ns en t t o th e pr opos ed sub le as e, it

did not pe rm it Sh one y ’ s to a rb itrar il y an d c ap ri ci ousl y r ef use consent, in part, bec ause the Assignm ent Agre em ent “ does not explicitly expr e ss s uch
as t a n d ar do f

d i s c r e t i o n . ” ( R
. 1
- 4 0 a t 1 0
. ) I n s t e a d , t h e c o u rt f o u n d t h a t u n d e r

A l ab a ma la w , S hone y ’ s r ef

usa l t o gr an t c onse nt w as sub j ec t t o ac om

m er ci al r eas on ab lene ss standard. It th en ruled that “ [t] he undi sputed evidence b efore this Court establi shes
as a m atter of law that S honey ’ s dem and for addition al p aym en t , which wa s an ad dit ion al te rm

not inc lud ed in Para gr ap h 19 , w as unr ea sona ble a nd M A C E as t i s therefore entitled to summ ary j udgm ent on its breach of c ontract claim .” ( Id

. at10 .) T he c ourt a lso gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t t o MAC E as t onit s to rt iou s interfer ence cla im
. The c ourt began by notin g that althoug h MAC Ea st never entered into a bin ding contract w ith City Caf é, Ala bam a lawperm itted a

tortious interfer ence claim when the plaintiff m erely has a “ busin ess relation” with a third party
. The c ourt
sa id tha t, a t a m ini m

um , S hone y ’ s r eque st o f ad dit ion al pa ym en ts i n e xc ha nge f or
co nse nt co nst itu te d co er ci on, m eanin g th at S hone y ’ s in te nti ona lly

int er fe re d w iththe busi ne ss r el at ion
. T he co urt the n turn ed to the que sti on of w he the r Sh one y ’ s w as a6

str an ge r to the “ co ntr ac t” be twee n MAC Ea st and C ity Ca fé be ca

use “ a ‘ pa rty

to a
co ntr ac t c an not , a s am at te r of law , be li ab le fo r to rti ous int er fe re nc e w iththe contract. ’ ” (

Id

. at 13 ( quot ing Bam a Budweiser v. Anheuser-B usch , 611 So
. 2d 2 38, 2 4 7 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) )
. ) Th e c o u rtc o n c l u d e d t h a t “b y r e q u i r i n g a d d i t i o n a l s u ms o f mo n e y,
ana ct ionnot

auth or iz ed

by the co ntr ac t, S hone y ’ s e ff ec tiv el y be cam e a non- pa rty

or
s t ra nger to the busi ness relation between MA C E ast and City Caf é. ” ( Id

. at 14 .) Consequent ly , it granted summ ary j udgm ent to MAC E ast on this claim , and denied
su m m ary jud gm en t t o S ho ne y ’s. The c ourt held a separate dam ages hearing in wh i ch MAC Ea st called three
w itn es se s and o ff

er ed num er ous ex hib its
. S hone y ’ s did not c al l any w itn es se s, but

did
cr o s s -e x am ine MAC Ea st’ s witnesses. Af ter the hear ing, the court entered a final j udgm en t aw ard in g MA C E as t $7 8, 732. 28, inc lud ing int er es t f ro m Jun e 15, 200 6. T he c ourt a lso appare ntl y a w ar de d a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s, a lth oughthe j udgm en t di d no t spe ci fy howm uc h of the a w ar d w as at tr ibu ta

ble to at tor

ne y ’ s fe es . T he c ourt di d no t
en te r writ te n fi nd in gs of f act reg ard in g M AC East ’s dam ag es . Sh one y ’ s a

ppe al s, c ha ll en gi ng the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of it s m oti on f

or
su m m a ry j ud gm e nt , t he c ourt ’ s gr a nt o f M A C E a st ’ s part i a l m ot i onf or sum m ary jud gm en t, an d t he da m ag es award in fav orof M AC East
.Shoney ’s also ar g ues that t he damag es awarde d to MAC East for br eac h of the Assig nment

5 Ag ree ment are too spe culative to w arr ant rec overy . Having revie wed the transc ript of the dama g es he ari ngand

the e xhibi ts o ff

e re d, we c on c lud e that MA C Ea st’ s dama g e s are no t to o s pe c ulativ e to war rant re cover

y . Thus, the district c ourt did not clea rly err in a war ding damag es (if in f

act Shoney ’s is deemed to have bre ache d the Assig nment Ag ree ment). We addre ss the damag es issue at this time beca use if we do not a ddress it, the issue we c ertify to the Alabama

Supreme Court would not nec essar ily be dispositive of the cla im. 7 II. Iss ue s on A pp ea l W e ad dr es s inthi s op ini on the f oll ow ing a rg um en ts r ai se d by S hone y ’ s on ap pe al : (1 ) tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in gr an tin g su m

m ar y j udgm en t t o M A C E as t on the tortio us interference claim , and in d eny ing Shon ey ’ s m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent on that claim ; and (2) that t he district court erre d in reading a com m ercia l
re as ona ble ne ss s tandard

int o S hone y ’ s “ sole discr et ion ” to w ith hol d c onse nt t o a pr opos ed sub le as e or

a ssi gnm en t. 5 Ina ddi tion to the above a rg um en ts, S hone y ’ s arg ue s th at e ve n if “ sol e dis cr et ion ” inc lud es ac om m er ci al r ea sona

ble ne ss s ta ndard , w he the r its w ith hol din g of c onse nt w as c om

m er ci al ly r ea sona ble is a qu es ti on of

f ac t f or aj ur y . G ive n ou r de ci sio n to c er

tif y aque sti on t o the A la

ba m a Su pr em e Co urt, w e fi nd i t pr em at ur e to
co nsi de r this arg um en t. W e al so f ind it unn ec es sa ry

to ad dr es s S hone y ’ s arg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in aw ar din g a tto rn ey ’ s f ee s to MA C East be cau se the A la ba m a Su pr em e Co urt’ s answ er

to the certifi ed

que sti on m ay

m oot the iss ue of at to rn ey ’s fees
.8 III. Discu ssion A
. T he T ortio us I nte rf

er en ce Cl ai m Inor de r to es ta

bli sh a c la im of tor tio us i nte rf

er en ce w ithc ontra ct

ua l or busi ne ss r el at ion s un de r A la ba m a la w , the pla int if

f m ust prov e (1 ) th e ex ist en ce of
a co ntr ac t or

bus ine ss r el at ion , ( 2) the de fe ndant’ s kn ow ledge of the c ontra ct

or busi ne ss r el at ion , (3 ) int en tio na l i nte rf er en ce w iththe c ontra ct

or bus ine ss r el at ion , an d (4 ) da m ag e to th e pl ai nt iff as a res ul t o f th e in te rfer en ce. U niv er sal U nde rw rit er

s Ins. Co. v. S tokes Chevrolet, I nc. , 990 F. 2d 598, 603 n.8 ( 11th Cir. 1993 ). H owever , a tortio us i nte rf

er en ce c la im can be m ai nta ine d on ly w he n th e de fe ndant i s ind ep en de nt o f or a str an ge r to the r el at ionor c ontra ct w ithw hic h he a lle ge dly in te rfer ed
. To m ’s F

ood, I nc . v . Ca rn , 896 So
. 2d 443, 454 (A la
. 2004 ). A de fe ndant is not a stranger to a contract or business relationsh ip when (1 ) the de fe ndant i s an es se nti al en tity to the pur porte d in j ur ed r el at ion s; (2 ) the a lle ge dly

inj ur ed r el at ion s are ine xtr ic ab ly apa rt of or de pe nde nt uponthe de fe ndant’ s contra ct ua l or busi ne ss re la tio ns; (3 ) the de fe ndant w oul d be n e f

i te c o n o m i c a l l y

f r o m t h e a l l e g e di n

j u r e dr e l a t i o n s ; o r

( 4) both th e de fe ndant and th e pla int if f ar e pa rt ie s to ac om

pr eh en siv e int er w ove n se t of

c ontra ct or r el at ion s. W adde ll & R ee d, In c v. U

nit ed In vesto rs Li

fe In s. Co

. , 875 So. 2d 1 143, 1156 (A la. 2003 ) (quot ing Britt/Paulk Ins. Agency , Inc. v. Vandrof

f Ins. A geny, I

nc. , 952 F. S upp. 15 75 , 15 84 (N.D. Ga. 19 96 )) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
.9

T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t w he n S hone y ’ s c ondi tio ne d its a ppr ova l of

the subl ea se on the pa ym en t of a ddi tio na l su m s of

m one y , a n a ct ionnot

auth or iz ed

by the A ssi gnm en t A gr ee m en t, it “ ef fe ct ive ly be cam e a non- pa rty

or str an ge r to the bus ine ss
re la tio n be tw ee n M A C E as t and C ity Ca fé
. ” (R
. 1- 40 a t 14
. ) Appl y ing de nov o
re vie w, Hol lo man v. M

ail-W el l C orp. , 44 3 F .3d 83 2, 8 36 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), we di sa gr ee. Fi rs t, S hone y ’ s wa s an “ es se nti al en tity to the pur porte d in j ur ed r el at ion s, ” the fir st W adde ll e xam pl e , b e c aus e i t s c on se nt w a s ap r e r e qu i si t e t o t he p roposed subl ea se . S ec ond, S hone y ’ s and M A C E as t are both parti es to the A ssi gnm en t A gr ee m en t, the te rm s of

w hic h a ff

ec t M A C E as t’ s a

bi li tyto subl ea se the pr em ise s. T he re fo re , the y

“ ar e pa rt ie s to ac om

pr eh en sive in te rw ove n se t of c ontra ct or
re la tio ns, ” the f

ourth W adde ll ex amp l e. Fi n al l y, an d as a p ra ct i ca l m at t er , S h o n ey’s
cannot be astr an ge r to the sub le as e w he n c onsu m m at ion of the subl ea se w oul d le av e it obl iga te d onthe c ove na nts of the gr ound

le as e, e ff

ec tiv el y f orm ing abus ine ss rel at io ns hi p b et ween it an d C it y Café . (R.1 -1 6, Po wer Aff., at 1 ¶ 3 .) For these re asons, t he district court erre d in granting MAC Ea st summ ary ju d g m en t as t o l i ab i l i t y o n t h e t o rt i o u s i n t er fe re n ce cl ai m , a n di n d en yin g Sh o n ey’s
su m m ary jud gm en t o n t ha t cl ai m .10 B. Br ea chof

the A ssi gnm en t A gr ee m en t C la im In granting su m

m ary j udgm ent to MAC E ast, the district court firs t held that Shoney ’ s “ s o l e discretion” to withhol d consent was subjec t to a com m ercia l
re as ona b l e n e s s s t a n d a r d
. I tt h e n h e l dt h a tS h o n e y ’ s r e f u s a l t o c o n s e n tw a s n ot
co m m erci al ly reaso na bl e as a m at te r of law. O u r a n a l ys i s i s g u i d e db y Hom a-Goff Interiors, Inc. v. Co wden , 350 S o. 2d 1035 ( A la
. 197 7) , aspl int er ed op in io n of the A la ba m a Su pr em e Co urt i nvol vin g a subl ea se appr ova l c lause . T he le as e in tha t ca se pr ovi de d tha t “ [t ] he L es se e sha ll not
as sig n or sub le as e al l or

a ny pa rt of the
. . . pr em ise s e xc ep t by a nd w ithappr ova l of the Le ssor in writing.” Id

. at 1037
. T w o ju sti ce s of the A la ba m a Su pr em e Co urt he ld tha t “ ev enw he re the le as e pr ovi de s an a ppr ova l c lause, a la ndlor d m ay not
unr eas on ab ly and c ap ri ci ousl y w ith hol d hi s c onse nt t o asub le as e ag re em en t. T he landlord’s re

j ection shou ld be judged under a test apply ing a reasonable comm ercia l standard.” Id

. at 1308 (the “ Jones op inion ”). Four j ustices concurred with this part of th e Jo ne s op in io n in a sp eci al co nc ur ren ce au th or edby Jus ti ce Be at ty. Id

. a t 10 39 (th e “ Bea tt y

op in io n” ). The f our justices f

or whom Justice Beatty wr ote, howe ver, also believed that the pa rt ie s c oul d e xpr es sly ag re e “ tha t the le sso r’ s de ci sio n, f or w ha te ve r re as on, is bind ing.” Id

. at 1039 (B ea tty , J. , co nc ur ri ng spe ci al ly ). T he opi nio n r ea sone d th at “ if11

a re as ona ble a nd p ru de nt b usi ne ssp er son w oul d no t ob j ec t t o th e subl es se e, the le sso r
w ill not be al low ed to ar

bitrari ly dis ap pr ove of him unl es s the pa rt ie s have e xpr es sly bargained to give the lessor that power without regard to comm ercia l standards.” Id

. at 1040 (Beatty , J., special concurrence extended). So, the j ustices for whom Justice Be at tyw ro te be lie ve d th at ac om m er ci al r ea sona

ble ne ss s ta ndard

appl ie d to le as e approval clauses wher e th e parties had not “ bargained to giv e the lessor [the powe r to arbitrarily

disapprov e] without regard to com m ercia l standards.” Id

. Fi nally , thr ee j ust ic es dis se nte d intw o di ff er en t op ini ons. T he dis se nti ng j ust ic es m ai nta ine d tha t A la ba m a co urts h ad

ne ve r re ad

ac om m er ci al r ea sona

ble ne ss standard int o su ble as e ap pr ova l c lause s. Bu ild ing on tha t the m e, the dis se nti ng j ustices also wrote that parties could contract to any standard they wished to govern
a la nd lo rd ’s refu sa l to gr an t con se nt to a pr op os ed su bl eas e o ra s s ig nm en t. Id

. at 10 39 -4 0, 1 04 1 (t he “ di ss en ti ng op in io ns ”). W e co nc lud e tha t se ve n j ust ic es in H om a- G off —the j ust ic es of the Be at ty a nd d i s s en t i n g o p i n i o n s
— ag re ed t h at p ar t i es ar e f re e t o co n t ra ct t o wh at ev er stand ard they ple as e to g ove rnalandl or d’ s w ith hol di ng of c onse nt t o apr opos ed

sub le as e or
as sig nm en t. I n the pr es en t c as e, unl ike in H om a- G off , the pa rt ie s a

ppe ar to ha ve
co ntr ac te d f

or astandard by w hic h ap pr ova l to subl ea se shou ld be j udge d—the “ sol e dis creti on” standard
. S o th e que sti on b ec om es , w ha t do es “ sol e dis cr et ion ” m ean?12

Sh one y ’ s ar gue s that “ sol e dis cr et ion ” m eans tha t i t ha s th e unqu al if ie d r igh t to w ith hol d c onse nt t o asub leas e. MAC E as t arg ue s th at e ve n un de r a “ sol e dis cr et ion ” standard , S hone y ’ s m aynot a rb itr ar ily

a nd c ap ri ci ousl y

r ef use c onse nt. W e fin d no cl ear, c ontro lli ng p re ce de nt i n A la ba m a la w , a nd, on this appe al , dec i di ng w ha t“ so l e d i sc r e t i on ” m e a ns i s de t e rm i na t i ve a s t o t he b r e a c h of c on t r a ct claim
. Beca

use we find no con trolling prece dent and bec au s e t h i s issue im plicates Alabam a’ s publ ic pol ic y int er es ts in the al ie nabil ity of co m m er ci al pr ope rty, we
ce rt if y the f oll ow ing que sti on t o th e A la ba m a Su pr em e Court unde r A la

ba m a Ru le of Appe lla te P ro ce dur e 18:

Under A l abam a law , w hen an assignm ent contract gives the a ssi gno r “ sol e dis cr et ion ” to w ith hol d c onse nt t o th e as sig ne e’ s pr opos ed subl ea se , is the a ssi gnor ’ s e xe rc ise of tha t di sc re tio n su

bj ec t t o ac om

m erc ia l r ea sona

ble ne ss st a nd a r d, o r

a ny o t he r s t a nd a r d? O ur phr as ing of

the que sti on i s no t i nte nde d to r es tr ic t the sc ope or inquir y by the A la ba m a Su pr em e Co urt. “ [I ] f w e ha ve ove rl ooke d or m isc ha ra ct er iz ed a ny sta te l a w i s s u e s o r

i n a rt f u l l y s t a t e d
. . . t h e q u e s t i o n [ ] w e h a v e p o s e d , w e h o p e t h e A l ab a ma S up r e m e C ourtw i l l f

e e l f r e e t o m a ke t he n e c e ss a ry c or r e c t i ons.” Ti l lman v. R. J. Re ynolds Tob acco , 253 F. 3d 1302 , 1308 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) ( quot ing Spai n v. B row n & W ill iam son , 23 0 F .3d 13 00 , 13 12 (11 th Cir . 20 00 )).13 IV. Conc lusion T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t to MA C E as t a s to liabilityon its tortious interfer ence claim is reversed, and the court is directed to enter
summ ar y ju d g m en t in favor of Shoney ’ s on that claim
. The question of whether a
co m m er ci al r ea sona

ble ne ss s tandard , or

a ny oth er standard , te m

pe rs Sh one y ’ s “ sol e d i s c r e t i o n ” t o w i t h h o l dc o n s e n tt o ap r o p o s e ds ub l e a s e i s c e rt i f i e dt o t h e A l ab a ma Su p re m e Co urt. W e find no error in the district court’ s award of dam ages, if an
aw a r d of dam a ge s i s ul t i m a t e l y w a rr a nt e d. W e de f e r de c i si on on a t t or

ne y ’ s fees pe nd in g t he Alab am a Su pr em e Co ur t’s re sp on se to ou r cer ti fie d q ue st io n. REV ERS ED IN PAR T. QUE STION CE RTIF IED T O THE SU PREME COURT OF ALABAMA.