NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0237n.06 No. 09-3480 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

J OHN CHAB RIA; RENI TA, L TD., f/k/a Z ENIX, L TD., Pla int if

fs -A pp e lla nts , v. EDO WESTERN CORP ORATI ON, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PE A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STRI CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

BEF ORE: M AR TIN , R OG ER S, a nd M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ge. Plaintiffs J ohn Chabria a nd Renita Ltd. appe a l t

h e district cour

t’s g rant of de fenda

nt EDO Western Corpora

tion’s motion for summary judgme nt on Chabria’s br eac h of c ontr a c t c la im. Whe n E DO a c qu ir ed the a sse ts o f C ha br ia ’s mic ro wa

ve c e ra mic s b us ine ss i n Dec ember

1998, EDO a g ree d to pay

Chabria r oyalties in the amount of five perc ent of the gross sales of the microw ave c era

mics product line, up to $1.2 million. After the produc t line failed to make

a pr of it, ED O s hut do wn

the lin e in m id- 20 02 . Ch a br ia su bs e qu e ntl y

fi le d su it, c la imi ng a ri g ht t o more than $1.1 million in unpaid roy alties. EDO has appar ently made no e ffor

t to revive the pr oduct l i n e , n o r c o u l d E D O r e e n t e r

th e m i c r o w av e c e r am i c s m ar k e tt o d ay. Applying N ew Yor

k law, which the parties a g ree g overns their dispute, th e d i s t ri ct court

c on c lud e d that the pa

rt ie s’ a g re e me nt imp lie d a pro mis e that EDO wo uld us e re a so na

ble e ff or ts t oNo. 09-3480

Chabria v. EDO W

estern Corporation

- 2 - g ener ate r evenue s—and, in turn, royalties—from the sale of the produc t line. C h a b r i a v . E

D OW. Corp. , No. 2:06-CV-00543, 2009 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 27078, at *22-25 (S.D. Ohio M ar . 3 0 , 2009). EDO doe s not contest this ruling on appeal. The district court also conc luded that EDO ha d prese nted sig nificant e vidence that it had in fac t used re as o n ab l e efforts. Id. at *28-30. Indeed, duringthe three -and- one-ha lf y ear s EDO had manufa cture d the produc t line, EDO had spe nt more tha n $ 3 milli on to p ur c ha se ne w e qu ipm e nt, mod if y its fa c ili ty , c on du c t r e se arc h a nd de ve lop me nt, produce samples, gene rate quotations, and marke t the line. Id. at *28-30, *32-33. B ased in pa rt on t h e ra t i o n ale that “ [r] easona ble ef forts does not re quire e very possible effor

t, to the detriment of one’s own inter ests or financ es,” the district court dete rmined that Chabria had not cr eate d a g enuine issue of fact as to the re asonable ness of EDO ’s ef forts. Id. at *30-40. EDO was there fore entitled to judgment a s a matter of law on Chabria ’s bre ach of contra ct claim. Id. at *40. On appe al, Chabria argues primarily that beca use EDO spe nt less money on equipment and fac iliti es than EDO had orig inally planned t o spend, and be cause EDO did not rea ssess the mic ro wa ve c e ra mic s ma rk e t a ft e r ED O s hut do wn the pr od uc t li ne , E DO fa ile d to us e re a so na ble

e ff or ts. Cha br ia a dv anc e d b oth

argume nts , in

mor e or le ss t he same fo rm , in hi s o pp os iti on to EDO’s motion for summar y judgme nt in the dist ri ct co u rt
. After car eful re view of the rec ord evidenc e, the c ontrolling c ase la w, an d t h e p arties’ briefs a nd oral a rguments on appea l, we agree with the district court’s comprehe nsive analy sis of Chabria ’s contentions as to his brea ch of c ontrac t claim. See id. at *27-40. We add only that Chabria ha s never

explained why it w a s unr e a so na ble forEDO not to rea ssess the microwa ve ce ramics mar

ket. Ther e is evidenc e to sug g est that theNo. 09-3480

Chabria v. EDO W

estern Corporation

- 3 - marke t declined a fter E DO and Cha bria e ntere d into their agree ment. Chabria has not shown that the mark e t late r r e c ov e re d, no r ha s he pr e se nte d ev ide nc e that sal e s o f E DO ’s c omp e tit or s’ pr od uc ts imp ro ve d o ve r t ime . A s a re su lt, the re is no ba sis to co nc lud e that, be c a us e ED O d id n ot r e a sse ss the mark e t, E DO fa ile d to us e re a so na ble e ff or ts t o g e ne rate re ve nu e s. Be cause the i ssuance of a more detailed written opinion would be unnec essar ily duplicative and would not a dvance the jurisprudenc e of this court, we a ffirm the judgment of the district cour t based on the rea soning in that c ourt’s Mar ch 30, 2009, opinion and orde r.