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 MARCH 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ DO NOT PUBLISH ]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1421 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 06- 0159 3- CV -T CB -1 SOUTHERN ENT ERTAINMENT TELE VISION, INC. , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant , v e r s u s COMC AST CORPORATION , De fendant-Appellee
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Northern District of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 28, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK a nd MA RC U S , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: So u t h ern En t er t ai n m en tTe l e v i s i o n , I n c. (“SET” ) ap p ea l s t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s fi na l j ud gm e nt

i n f a vo r o f C om c a st C or p. ( “ C om c a st ” )
. S E T i s am us i c v ideoSET a lso a sse rt e d a n a nti tr us t c la im, wh ic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt dis mis se d f

or fa ilure to s tate 1 a c la im. Th e dis mis sa l of

the anti tr us t c la im i s n ot at is su e in t his a pp e a l. 2 m ar k et er and televisio n program m ing service. C om cast is a provider of ca ble,
en te rt ai nm en t, a nd c om

m uni catio ns p ro duc ts and se rv ic es . S E T f ile d th is s uit al le gin g ac la im

f or br ea chof

the part ie s’ A ff

ili at ion Agr eem en t and s ee kin g $1 50
m ill ionin da m ag es . T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d C om cas t’s m otion t o di sm iss the 1
co m pla int , pur suant t o R

ule 12( b) (6 ) of the Fe de ra l Ru le s of Ci vil P ro ce dur e, f

ind ing that SET had not stated a claim for bre ach of the A ffiliation Agree m ent because that agreem ent oblig ated Com cast t o carr y SE T’ s program

m ing on ly

in the event that Co m ca st l aunc he d S E T ’ s pr ogr am m ing
. O n ap pe al , SE T a rg ue s th at the te rm s of

the A ff ili at ionA gr ee m en t ar e am big uous a nd tha t C om ca st tri gge re d it s ob lig at ion s by i s s u i n g a“l au n c h n o t i c e . ” We a f f i rm. A dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm is sa l purs uant t o R ule 12( b) (6 ) is s ubj ec t t o de nov o review
. See Harris v. IV AXCorp., 182 F.3d 799, 803 (11t h Cir. 1999 ). W e take as tr ue the a lle ga tio ns the pla int if f se ts f orth i n th e co m

pla int a nd e xa m ine w he the r tho se
a l l e g a t i o n s d e s c r i b e a n i n

ju ry f o r w h i c h t h e l a w p r o v i d e s r e l i e f
. S e e We l c h v . La n e y, 57 F
. 3d 1 004, 100 8 (11th Cir
. 1995 ). W e con str ue the pla int if

f’ s a lle ga tio ns l ibe ra lly be ca use th e is su e is n ot whe the r pla int if f w ill ult im at el y

pr ev ai l bu t w he the r the pla int if f is e nti tl ed to off

er e vid en ce to supp ort i ts c la im s. S ee S ch eu er v. Rh ode s,3

416 U
. S. 232 , 236 (1 974)
. W e al so r ev ie wde nov o th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in te rp re ta tio n of ac ontra ct ’ s pr ovi sio ns. L aF ar ge Co rp . v. T rave le rs I nde m . Co
. , 118 F
. 3d 1 511, 1515 (11th Cir. 1997). On appeal, SE T urges that the district c ourt’ s dism issal of the com plaint was ba se d onam isunde rs ta nd in g of the te rm “ launc h, ” w hic h is not

de fi ne d inthe A ff ili at ionA gr ee m en t. The A ff ili at ion A gr ee m en t wa s e xe cu te d onA ugus t 8, 199 7, be tw ee n S G M T el ev isi on, In c. ( “ SG M” ), w hic h ul tim at el y a ssi gne d th e A gr ee m en t to S E T , a nd S at el lit e Sy ste m s, I nc . ( “ SS I” ), nowaw hol ly -o w ne d su bsi diary of Co m ca st. T he pr ovi sio n a t i ssu e pr ovi de s th e fo llo w ing : [S SI ] sha ll ha ve th e ri ght , upo n w ri tte n no tic e to [ SG M] w ith in thirty (3 0 ) d a y s t h e r e o f

, t o e l e c t t o i n c l u d e u n d e r t h i s A g r e e m e n t, a nd t o de m an dau t h o r i z a t i o n f

r o m [ S G M ] , i f

n e c e s s a ry , a n dt o l au n c h the Service [SG M’ s p ro gram m ing] on, any

Cable Sy stem

or other video dis tr ibu tio n sy ste m

or e nt erp ri se by

w hic h or

to w hic h [ SS I] is au tho ri ze d to e xhi bit , dis tr ibu te , sub dis tr ibu te a nd/ or auth or iz e the rece ption of the Service [SG M’ s program m ing] pursuant to Section 1(a) he r e o f
. A n y C ab l e S y s t e m o r o t h e r v i d e o d i s t r i b u t i o n s y s te m or en te rp ri se that m ee ts the Sy ste m Q ua lif ic at ion s of E xhi bit A he re to, a nd th a t [ S S I ] e l e c t s t o i n c l u d e u n d e r t h i s A g r e e m e n t , i n d i v i du a l l y , a s a “ Sy stem ” or, collect i v el y, as “ Sy stem s,” a s set forth on Schedule 1 h e r e t o , a s s u c h S c h e du l e 1 ma y b e a d d e dt o o r d e l e t e df r o m, f r o m t i me to tim e, pur suant to the te rm s of this A gr ee m en t. Upon [S G M’ s] r ec ei pt of not ic e of

suc h an e le ct ion , S ch ed ule 1 he re to s ha ll be de em ed to include such Sys t em and such Sy stem shall be included as a S y stem under this Agreem ent as if the later of: (i) the launch date o f the Se rvice [S G M’ s pr ogr am

m ing ] on s uc h S y ste m , (ii ) the da te suc h S y ste m f ir st m ee ts the Sy ste m Q ua lif

ic at ion s of Ex hib it A he re to, or ( iii ) the da te f

or4

in cl usion specified in such not ice if such notice is properly given pursuant to Sec tion 1 1 hereof. O n O ct obe r 31, 199 7, S SI iss ue d a“N oti fi catio n of D igi ta l L aunc h” to SGM. T he N oti fi catio n pr ovi de d th at S SI w as “ pr opos [i ng] to launc h th e SG M s er vic e” w itha pr opos ed launc h da te of

D ec em be r 9, 19 97. It

is undi sput ed

that ne ith er

S SI nor Co m ca st ever carried the program m ing of SGM, or its successor, S ET
. In other words, the proposed laun ch never took place. Pu ts i m p l y, th e A g re emen td o es n o to b l i g at e C o m ca s tt o c a r r y S ET’s pr ogr am m ing und er

the se c ir cu m stanc es . R athe r, the A gr eem ent gi ve s C om ca st a non-exclusi ve right, but not an ob ligation , “ to exhib it, distribute, an d authorize” SE T’s p ro g ra m

m i n g . Un d er the t er m s o f t h e A g re emen t , a n y o b l i g at i o n o n Co m ca s t ’s part is tr iggered onlyupon “ launch,” w hich did not occur here. Moreover, contrary to SET’ s ar gu m en t, as se rte d fo r th e fi rs t t im e h ere, i ss ua nc e o f a “l au nc h n ot ic e,” al one , doe s no t su ffice
. I n sh ort, the “N oti fi catio n of D igi ta l L aunc h” did

not
co nst itu te a“ launc h” of

S E T ’ s pr ogr am

m ing , as co nte m

plate d by the unam big uous te rm s of the A ff ili at ionA gr ee m en t. A cco rd in gl y , Co m ca st d id n ot b re ac h th e Agre em ent by

failing to carry

SE T’ s program

m ing. W e d iscern n o error in the dist rict
co urt’ s in te rp re ta tio n of

the A gr eem en t or the c ourt’ s le ga l ana ly sis , inc lud ing it s5

ap pli catio n of

the dis m iss al standard

und er Rule 12 (b )(6), a s di sc uss ed in Be ll Atlantic Corp. v. T wom

bly , 127 S. Ct. 1955 , 1964-65 (2007 ). AFFIRMED.