1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

JESSE IWUJI MOTORSPORTS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EQUITY PRIME MORTGAGE, LLC, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER ON PARTIES’ 

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon two separate Motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment, ECF No. [33], filed on February 13, 2024; Defendant filed a Response in 

Opposition, ECF No. [38], to which Plaintiff filed a Reply, ECF No. [43]; and (2) Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [35], filed on February 14, 2024; Plaintiff filed a 

Response in Opposition, ECF No. [42], to which Defendant filed a Reply, ECF No. [44]. The 

Court has reviewed the Motions, all opposing and supporting submissions,1 the record in the case, 

the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [33], is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [35], is granted in part and denied in part. 

I. BACKGROUND

1 Plaintiff filed a Statement of Material Facts (“SMF”) in support of its Motion for Summary 

Judgment, ECF No. [32]. Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s SMF (“Response to SMF”), ECF No. 

[39]. Defendant filed a Statement of Material Facts in Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 

and in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“DSMF”), ECF No. [36]. Plaintiff filed a 

Response to the DSMF (“Response to DSMF”), ECF No. [40]. 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 1 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

2

A. Material Facts

Based on the parties’ briefings and the evidence in the record, the following facts are not 

genuinely in dispute unless otherwise noted. Jesse Iwuji Motorsports (“JIM”) is a company that 

formed a NASCAR racing team. JIM’s stated purpose is to develop programs to support 

transitioning military members and promote diversity in motorsports and other fields. ECF No. 

[40] ¶ 5. JIM is named after one of its founding members, Jesse Iwuji, an African-American athlete 

for the U.S. Naval Academy’s football team who became one of JIM’s race car drivers. See, e.g., 

ECF No. [40-2]. Equity Prime Mortgage (“EPM”) is a licensed mortgage lender, whose stated 

mission is to provide opportunities to build wealth through homeownership to minorities and 

military veterans. ECF No. [36-9] ¶ 2. Both parties entered into negotiations to make EPM the 

sponsor of JIM’s NASCAR racing team. On November 30, 2021, JIM and EPM executed a 

Sponsorship Agreement, together with the Statement of Work, collectively referred to as the 

Agreement (“Agreement”), ECF No. [7-1], delineating the companies’ mutual responsibilities 

pursuant to EPM’s sponsorship.

i. Terms of the Agreement

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, in exchange for JIM’s performance of services, 

EPM agreed to pay JIM a total of six million dollars (USD $6,000,000.00) (the “Compensation”). 

The Compensation was payable as follows: 

(i) Year One of the Term (2022 Season): Equity Prime Mortgage shall pay JIM 

Two Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars (USD 

$2,250,000.00), to be paid monthly starting December 1, 2021 at the 

monthly payment amount of One Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand, Five 

Hundred Dollars (USD $187,500.00/month). Monthly payment shall be

paid on the first day of each month.

(ii) Year Two of the Term (2023 Season): Equity Prime Mortgage shall pay 

JIM Three Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars (USD 

$3,750,000.00), to be paid monthly starting December 1, 2022 at the 

monthly payment amount of Three Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Five 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 2 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

3

Hundred Dollars (USD $312,500.00/month). Monthly payment shall be

paid on the first day of each month.

Compensation Terms, Statement of Work (“SOW”), ECF No. [7-1] at 6. The Agreement 

sets forth the terms of the parties’ relationship. Section 7(b), entitled “Termination[,]” states, 

“Either Party may terminate the Agreement upon written notice to the other Party if such Party is 

in breach of any material provision of the Agreement and such breach is not cured within thirty 

(30) days after written notice thereof is received by the Party.” Id. at ¶ 7(b). Section 7(c), entitled 

“Effect of Termination” states as follows: 

Upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, all rights, duties, and obligations 

of the Parties shall automatically cease as of the date of expiration or termination; 

provided, in the event of termination pursuant to Company’s material breach of this 

Agreement, Company acknowledges that it shall remain responsible for paying JIM 

the entirety of the compensation set forth in the SOW.

Id. at ¶ 7(c).

Furthermore, section 12(c) of the Agreement states, “This Agreement constitutes the entire 

agreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter herein and 

supersedes all prior written and oral agreements, discussions, or representations between the 

Parties relating to the subject matter herein.” Id. at ¶ 12(c). Section 12(f) of the Agreement, entitled 

“Entire Agreement” states that “No modification of or amendment to this Agreement, nor any 

waiver of any rights under this Agreement, will be effective unless in a writing signed by the 

Parties.” Id. at ¶ 12(f). 

The SOW sets forth two categories of services to be provided by JIM: (1) Talent Likeness, 

and (2) Race Sponsorship Deliverables. Id. at 6. “Talent Likeness” is defined as “the name, image, 

likeness, and/or other publicity rights of: (1) Jesse Iwuji, and (2) Emmitt Smith. All use of Talent 

Likeness shall be subject to JIM’s prior review and written approval, which may be withheld in

JIM’s sole discretion.” Id. at 6. “Race Sponsorship Deliverables” refers to various “On-Track 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 3 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

4

Team Commitments” and “Off-Track Team Commitments” to be provided by JIM for the benefit 

of EPM. In its On-Track Team Commitments, the SOW lists: “Eight (8) Primary Races (“Primary 

Races”) per season to prominently featuring Equity Prime Mortgage Logo and Colors during the 

2022 and 2023 seasons[,]” and indicates the race names. Id. at 7. It also states that “[t]he Parties 

reserve the right to modify the Primary Races upon mutual agreement.” Id. 

In its Off-Track Team Commitments, the SOW lists the following services to be performed 

by JIM, among others:

• One (1) day of production each quarter with Jesse Iwuji (maximum six (6) 

hours) on a mutually agreeable day. The date, time, and location of the 

production day shall be mutually determined by the Parties 

 Jesse Iwuji Likeness to be used for commercial, print or 

digital advertising purposes. All use of Jesse Iwuji’s 

Likeness shall be subject to JIM’s prior written approval.

 JIM will provide Emmitt Smith for 6hrs of production per 

year (2 hours off-track. 4 hours at track or at current 

location). The date, time, and location of the production day 

shall be mutually determined by the Parties.

 Content direction desired and production day materials (i.e. 

scripts for review, etc.) shall be provided by Equity Prime 

Mortgage in advance and shall be mutually agreed upon in 

each instance by the Parties.

....

• Two (2) Social media posts the week leading up to the race from 

JIM’s and Jesse Iwuji’s personal pages. One (1) JIM social media post-race 

thanking Equity Prime Mortgage for sponsoring team. Eight (8) social 

media posts from Emmitt Smith’s social media promoting Primary Races 

during 2022 and 2023 – caption to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties 

and should be focused on Primary Race partnership of race team

....

• Jesse Iwuji to be available for Equity Prime Mortgage podcast once 

a quarter. The date, time, and location of the podcast taping shall be 

mutually determined by the Parties. Emmitt Smith available to join with 

Jesse for 2x podcast each year of agreement. Dates must be mutually agreed 

upon. 

• Jesse Iwuji to be available for a sixty (60) min virtual team talk 

addressing the Equity Prime Mortgage team once per quarter. Dates must 

be mutually agreed upon.

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 4 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

5

Id. at 8.2 The Agreement was signed by Eddy Perez on behalf of EPM and Matt Casto on 

behalf of JIM. Id. at 9.

ii. EPM’s Failure to Pay

EPM stopped making Compensation payments on October 1, 2022 and November 1, 2022.

EPM and JIM staffers were in communication about EPM’s failure to make payments, starting on 

“September 27, 2022 (phone call in which [Perez] communicated that EPM was not doing well 

with the rate hike and margin calls) and on September 29, 2022 (text about not going to be making 

[EPM’s] 11th payment on October 1st, 2022 or any of the payments)” as memorialized in an email 

from Matt Casto at JIM to Eddy Perez at EPM on October 12, 2022. ECF No. [32-7]. In that email, 

Casto offered payment solutions to Perez :

In order to get us thinking in advance on a possible solution, here are just a few 

possible starting points for consideration: 

•Delay the start of Year 2 for up to 12 months. Revisit restarting on October 15th, 

2023. 

•Possibly reduce the sponsorship amount for year 2 and extend the payment 

schedule to extend past 12 months. 

•Reach a settlement agreement that is mutually beneficial. 

Please note that these are merely suggestions at this point meant to get us thinking 

and any future modifications or changes to our agreement would need to be jointly 

agreed upon by both parties in writing. We are hopeful to find a solution that could 

work for both parties as you know how important our relationship is. Our ownership 

team greatly values our partnership and look forward to working through this 

challenge together.

ECF No. [32-7] at 2. On October 13, 2022, Perez answered as follows:

Thank you for the email and the solutions provided to start honest conversations. 

My apologies again for my challenges and it’s 100% on myself. Unfortunately, I 

held on longer then I should of before rightsizing the ship. Once again, 100% solely 

on the eyeballs in the mirror and great appreciate you guys along w the grace!!! I’ll 

get w my CFO to get this going asap. Thank you and apologies again for my 

challenges!!

2 Emmitt Smith is another member of JIM. ECF No. [40-2] ¶ 3.

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 5 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

6

ECF No. [32-7] at 1. No contractual modifications were made. On November 3, 2022, JIM 

sent EPM a written Notice of Intent to Terminate Sponsorship Agreement (“Notice of Intent to 

Terminate”). ECF No. [7-2]. Therein, JIM stated:

It is JIM’s intention to cause a termination of the agreement under Section 7(b), 

titled, “Termination.” [EPM] is in breach of a material provision of the Agreement. 

Specifically, [EPM] has failed to make payments to JIM in the amount of 

$187,500.00 on October 1, 2022 and another $187,000.00 on November 1, 2022.

Under Section 7(b) of the agreement, JIM is providing the Company with thirty 

(30) days after receipt of this notice to remedy the issues as set forth above. After 

thirty (30) days, if the actions are not remedied and the breach is not cured, then 

JIM will consider the agreement to be effectively terminated; however, as stated in 

Section 7(c) of the agreement, Company shall remain responsible for paying JIM 

the entirety of the compensation set forth in the SOW.

Id. (emphasis added). 

On November 4, 2022, EPM’s lawyers acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Intent to 

Terminate in an email sent to JIM staff, which stated:

EPM rejects that notice because JIM failed to perform its obligations pursuant to

the terms of the Agreement. Specifically, JIM’s personnel failed to participate in 

events in accordance with the Scope of Work attached to, and incorporated by 

reference in, the Agreement.

Consequently, because JIM is in breach of material provisions of the Agreement, 

JIM is hereby notified pursuant to Sections 7(b) and 12(b) of the Agreement that 

EPM intends to terminate the Agreement. Given that JIM cannot cure its breach of 

the Agreement, because the events in which it failed to honor its contractual 

obligations have already taken place, at the end of the thirty (30) days cure period 

referenced in Section 7(b) the Agreement will be terminated, EPM will have no 

further obligation to make any payments pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, 

and EPM will seek reimbursement of payments make [(sic)] pursuant to the terms 

of the Agreement.

EPM hereby invokes the mediation provision of section 12(a) of the Agreement for 

the purpose of resolving outstanding issues between the parties. Next week our 

office will provide you with names of potential mediators for consideration and 

selection.

ECF No. [32-1].

EPM made no additional payments following this email exchange.

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 6 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

7 

The following facts are disputed: EPM alleges that when it sent its email on November 4, 

2022, it terminated the Agreement and ended its sponsorship of JIM. DSMF, ECF No. [36] ¶ 26. 

EPM alleges it terminated the Agreement because JIM failed to comply with its “On-Track” and 

“Off-Track Team Commitments.” Id. JIM disputes that this was an effective termination and 

claims EPM’s notice was not in accordance with the terms set forth in the Agreement. JIM 

Response to DSMF, ECF No. [40] ¶ 26. 

iii. JIM’s Race Sponsorship Deliverables and Talent Likeness

Certain facts pertaining to the performance of the Agreement are in dispute. After the 

Agreement was signed, EPM argues that JIM breached its On-Track Team Commitments because

Jesse Iwuji drove in only four of the eight races EPM sponsored in 2022, and another driver, Kyle 

Weatherman, drove in the other four. Id. at ¶¶ 17-18. JIM asserts that, pursuant to the Agreement, 

EPM served as sponsor for thirteen races during the 2022 NASCAR Season, in excess of the 

amount required in the Agreement. ECF No. [40] ¶ 17. JIM adds that Jesse Iwuji drove in seven 

of those thirteen races. Id. at ¶ 18. 

JIM and Jesse Iwuji made the following social media posts around EPM-sponsored races: 

 Around the March 5, 2022 race: 

o JIM posted a video of the car on March 1, 2022 with the caption 

“That #34 @epmplus Chevy Camaro SS” ECF No. [40-2] ¶ 17(a)(i). 

o JIM posted two additional posts on March 3 and March 4, 2022, which do not 

include EPM, although they show the JIM car which features the EPM logo. Id. at 

¶¶ 17(a)(ii)-(iii).

 Around the May 28, 2022 race: 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 7 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

8

o On May 23, 2022, JIM posted two pictures of racecars, both tagged @epmortgages. 

Id. at 17(b)(ii)-(iii).

o On May 27, 2022, JIM posted a picture of a racecar with several hashtags and 

sponsors, including one #equityprimemortgage hashtag. Id. at ¶ 17(b)(i).

 Around the July 16, 2022 race:

o Iwuji posted on July 11, 14, and 15, 2022. Each post tagged #EPM and 

#equityprimemortgage among several other sponsors and hashtags. Id. at ¶ 14(b).

 Around the July 23, 2022 race:

o On July 17, 2022, Iwuji posted as follows:

God is good! Let's gooooooo! P8...Halfway through year #1 for our 

team and we scored our first Top 10 finish for 

@jesse.iwuji.motorsports! Kyle did a great job driving, the team did 

a great job preparing the vehicle and managing the race, and our 

corporate partners have been amazing support throughout the year 

giving us the opportunity to grow our operation. We could not do 

this without EPM, Chevrolet, Coca Cola, and all of the other 

businesses that have supported us since day 1! Let's keep this train 

moving in a positive trajectory! #JIM #jesseiwujimotorsports 

#JIMszn #chevrolet #equityprimemortgage #cocacola #NASCAR

Id. at ¶ 14(c)(i).

o On July 22, 2022, Iwuji posted a picture of himself thanking Chevrolet at a 

Chevrolet charity event with an EPM cap. Id. at ¶14(c)(ii).

o Iwuji posted the day after the race, on July 24, 2022, a lengthy post which concluded 

with:

We always want to thank our good Lord for keeping us safe at the 

track and affording us the opportunity to go after this journey and 

we want to give a big thanks to our partners at #epmortgages, 

#chevrolet, and #cocacola! #JIM #jesseiwujimotorsports #JIMszn 

#TeamChevy #camaross #EPM #equityprimemortgage #coke 

#teamchevy #chevy #NASCAR

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 8 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

9 

Id. at ¶ 14(c)(iii).

 Around the October 1, 2022 race: 

o JIM posted a picture of a race on September 25, 2022, with the caption: 

What a blazing hot day in Texas!!! It was a character building day 

though because everything that could go wrong, did go wrong. We 

battled every circumstance thrown our way until there was no other 

options available. The @epmortgages Chevy Camaro SS was 

properly fast, easily a top 10 car, and looked as beautiful as a brand 

new home you can get financed by Equity Prime Mortgage if you 

visited www.epm.net right after reading, liking, and sharing this 

post to your friends... 

Id. at ¶ 17(c). 

o Jesse Iwuji posted on September 30, 2022: 

SHAKE & BAKE!!! Qualified P22 for Talladega today; I'm looking 

forward to a beautiful God blessed run tomorrow during the race! 

It'll be as beautiful as a house you buy with a lovely mortgage from 

@epmortgages! The time is now ���������

Id. at ¶ 14(d)(i).

iv. The Instant Action

On December 5, 2022, JIM filed its Complaint against EPM asserting a claim for breach 

of contract, ECF No. [1], later amended by the filing of JIM’s Amended Complaint. ECF No. [7]. 

JIM’s claim for breach of contract against EPM (Count I) alleges that EPM materially breached 

the Agreement by failing to make compensation payments to JIM, starting October 1, 2022. ECF 

No. [7] at 5. JIM seeks damages in an amount no less than $4,125,000.00, which accounts for the 

two months of unpaid compensation under Year One of the Term ($375,000.00), the twelve 

months of compensation due under Year Two of the Term ($3,750,000.00), and attorney’s fees 

and costs, and post-judgment interest at the maximum statutory rate. Id. at 6.

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 9 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

10

On February 9, 2023, EPM filed an Answer, asserting twelve Affirmative Defenses and a 

Counterclaim, asserting its own claim for breach of contract against JIM (the “Counterclaim”). 

ECF No. [10]. EPM alleges that JIM materially breached the Agreement when it “failed to 

participate in certain events in accordance with the Scope of Work as incorporated into the 

Sponsorship Agreement” and “knowingly concealed that Jesse Iwuji was no longer the sole driver 

of the EPM sponsored racecar.” ECF No. [10] ¶¶ 21-26.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Summary Judgment

The court may grant a motion for summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The parties may support their positions by citations to materials in the record, 

including depositions, documents, affidavits, or declarations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “A factual 

dispute is ‘material’ if it would affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, and 

‘genuine’ if a reasonable trier of fact could return judgment for the non-moving party.” Miccosukee 

Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)). 

The moving party shoulders the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue 

of material fact. Shiver v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir. 2008). Once this burden is 

satisfied, “the nonmoving party ‘must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical 

doubt as to the material facts.’” Ray v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 327 F. App’x 819, 825 (11th 

Cir. 2009) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 

(1986)). Instead, “the non-moving party ‘must make a sufficient showing on each essential element 

of the case for which he has the burden of proof.’” Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 

317, 322 (1986)). Accordingly, the non-moving party must produce evidence, going beyond the 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 10 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

11 

pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions 

on file, designating specific facts to suggest that a reasonable jury could find in the non-moving 

party’s favor. Shiver, 549 F.3d at 1343. Even “where the parties agree on the basic facts, but 

disagree about the factual inferences that should be drawn from those facts,” summary judgment 

may be inappropriate. Warrior Tombigbee Transp. Co., Inc. v. M/V Nan Fung, 695 F.2d 1294, 

1296 (11th Cir. 1983). This Court may not decide a genuine factual dispute at the summary 

judgment stage. Fernandez v. Bankers Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 906 F.2d 559, 564 (11th Cir. 1990). “[I]f 

factual issues are present, the Court must deny the motion and proceed to trial.” Warrior 

Tombigbee, 695 F.2d at 1296. 

B. Breach of Contract

The parties agree that Florida law governs this dispute, as agreed to in the Agreement. ECF 

No. [7-1] ¶ 12.a. Under Florida law, “[t]he elements of a breach of contract action are: (1) a valid 

contract; (2) a material breach; and (3) damages.” J.J. Gumberg Co. v. Janis Servs., Inc., 847 So. 

2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Beck v. Lazard Freres & Co., LLC, 175 F.3d 913, 

914 (11th Cir. 1999). “To constitute a material breach, a party's nonperformance must ‘go to the 

essence of the contract; it must be the type of breach that would discharge the injured party from 

further contractual duty on his part.’” Big E Trailers, Inc. v. Ohio Andersons, Inc., 2016 WL 

2943889, at *8 (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2016) (quoting Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King Intern., Inc., 267 

So.2d 853, 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)); see also Sublime, Inc. v. Boardman's Inc., 849 So.2d 470, 

471 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “A material breach occurs only when an injured party has sustained a 

substantial injury due to the breach.” Phawa, LLC v. Marjaba Imp. & Exp. Corp., No. 21-22208-

CV, 2021 WL 4150842, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 

21-CV-22208, 2021 WL 4147770 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2021). “In addition, in order to maintain an 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 11 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

12

action for breach of contract, a claimant must also prove performance of its obligations under the 

contract ....” American Moisture Control, Inc. v. Dynamic Building Restoration, LLC, No. 6:06–

cv–1908–Orl–28KRS, 2008 WL 4107131, at * 3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2008).

“It is a fundamental principle of Florida contract law that a material breach by one party 

excuses the performance by the other.” Hamilton v. Suntrust Mortg. Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1300, 1309 

(S.D. Fla. 2014). “A material breach is one that goes to the essence of the contract, as opposed to 

the mere failure to perform some minor part of the contract.” Id. at 1309 (citation omitted). It is 

through this lens that the Court analyzes the parties’ competing claims for breach of contract.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint: EPM’s Failure to Pay 

i. Liability

JIM argues that EPM materially breached the Agreement when EPM stopped making the 

Compensation payments on October 1, 2022 and November 1, 2022. ECF No. [33] at 6-11. EPM 

argues that JIM has failed to establish performance of its contractual obligations and thus cannot 

maintain an action for breach of contract. ECF No. [38] at 10. EPM argues that it failed to pay 

because JIM had previously breached the Agreement in three ways: (1) Jesse Iwuji failed to drive 

in all 8 EPM sponsored races and only drove in 4 races; (2) Jesse Iwuji failed to post his two 

contracted-for social media posts in the weeks preceding the March 5, 2022, July 16, 2023, July 

23, 2023 and October 1, 2023 races; (3) Jesse Iwuji only appeared on one podcast and did not 

appear for an EPM live-event in Quarter 2. Id. at 10-11. EPM also contends that JIM has failed to

assert it was damaged by EPM’s purported breach. Id. at 7. JIM responds it properly pled it was 

damaged by EPM’s failure to make payments in accordance with the Agreement’s payment 

obligations, as asserted in its Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. [43] at 6. Moreover, JIM 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 12 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

13

argues that the Agreement never required Jesse Iwuji to be the sole driver and Iwuji’s service as 

driver did not affect JIM’s participation in races in which EPM served as primary sponsor. Id. at 

7.

The Court therefore analyzes whether EPM’s failure to pay JIM the agreed-upon monthly 

compensation is a breach of the Agreement. On this record, there is little doubt that it was. 

There is no genuine dispute of material fact that EPM materially breached the Agreement 

when it stopped making Compensation payments. EPM stopped making Compensation payments 

on October 1, 2022 and November 1, 2022, thus breaching the Compensation Terms in the SOW. 

ECF No. [7-1] at 6. On November 3, 2022, JIM notified EPM of its material breach, gave EPM 

thirty days to cure the breach, and clarified that if the breach was not cured the Agreement would 

be terminated. ECF No. [7-2].3 EPM does not dispute that it failed to make the two payments, and 

as such, there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the breach occurred. However, 

EPM argues that it was excused from performance because JIM had previously materially 

3 On November 3, 2022, JIM sent EPM a Notice of Intent to Terminate that stated the below:

It is JIM’s intention to cause a termination of the agreement under Section 7(b), titled, 

“Termination.” [EPM] is in breach of a material provision of the Agreement. Specifically, 

[EPM] has failed to make payments to JIM in the amount of $187,500.00 on October 1, 

2022 and another $187,000.00 on November 1, 2022.

Under Section 7(b) of the agreement, JIM is providing the Company with thirty (30) days 

after receipt of this notice to remedy the issues as set forth above. After thirty (30) days, if 

the actions are not remedied and the breach is not cured, then JIM will consider the 

agreement to be effectively terminated; however, as stated in Section 7(c) of the agreement, 

Company shall remain responsible for paying JIM the entirety of the compensation set 

forth in the SOW.

ECF No. [7-2]. In doing so, JIM complied with Section 7(b) of the Contract, requiring a Party to 

“terminate the Agreement upon written notice to the other Party if such Party is in breach of any material 

provision of the Agreement and such breach is not cured within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof 

is received by the Party.” ECF No. [7-1] ¶ 7(b). EPM did not cure its breach within thirty days pursuant to 

receiving JIM’s Notice of Intent to Terminate. On December 3, 2022, thirty days after JIM’s Notice of 

Intent to Terminate, the Agreement was accordingly terminated. Id. at ¶ 7(c). 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 13 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

14

breached the Agreement. “It is a fundamental principle of Florida contract law that a material 

breach by one party excuses the performance by the other.” Hamilton, 6 F. Supp. 3d at 1309. 

The Court looks at whether the three alleged breaches by JIM excused EPM’s performance 

under the Agreement. The Court finds that they do not. A material breach by JIM would have 

excused EPM’s performance under Florida law, but EPM still had to comply with the Agreement’s

requirements regulating how it could stop performing in the event of a material breach. The 

Agreement sets forth a processfor EPM and JIM to terminate in the event the other party materially 

breaches the Agreement: 

Either Party may terminate the Agreement upon written notice to the other Party if 

such Party is in breach of any material provision of the Agreement and such breach 

is not cured within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof is received by the 

Party.

ECF No. [7-1] at 7(b). EPM did not comply with this clause when it believed JIM had 

materially breached the Agreement. EPM did not terminate the Agreement prior to failing to pay

the Compensation on October 1, 2022 and November 1, 2022. Instead, EPM only sent its notice 

of intent to terminate the Agreement on November 4, 2022 after defaulting on the two payments,

ECF No. [32-1], and in response to JIM’s notice of intent to terminate, ECF No. [7-2]. There, it 

noted that JIM had breached when “[s]pecifically, JIM’s personnel failed to participate in events 

in accordance with the Scope of Work attached to, and incorporated by reference in, the 

Agreement.” ECF No. [32-1]. EPM accordingly was not relieved of paying JIM its Compensation 

on October 1, 2022 and November 1, 2022.

Until November 4, 2022 and prior to its failure to pay, EPM did not notify JIM in writing 

of purported breaches by JIM. The record demonstrates that EPM and JIM staffers were in 

communication about EPM’s failure to make payments, starting on “September 27, 2022 (phone 

call in which [Perez] communicated that EPM was not doing well with the rate hike and margin 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 14 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

15

calls) and on September 29, 2022 (text about not going to be making [EPM’s] 11th payment on 

October 1st, 2022 or any of the payments)[,]” as memorialized in an email from Matt Casto at JIM 

to Eddy Perez at EPM on October 12, 2022. ECF No. [32-7]. In that email, Casto offered payment 

solutions to Perez:

In order to get us thinking in advance on a possible solution, here are just a few 

possible starting points for consideration: 

•Delay the start of Year 2 for up to 12 months. Revisit restarting on October 15th, 

2023. 

•Possibly reduce the sponsorship amount for year 2 and extend the payment 

schedule to extend past 12 months. 

•Reach a settlement agreement that is mutually beneficial. 

Please note that these are merely suggestions at this point meant to get us thinking 

and any future modifications or changes to our agreement would need to be jointly 

agreed upon by both parties in writing. We are hopeful to find a solution that could 

work for both parties as you know how important our relationship is. Our ownership 

team greatly values our partnership and look forward to working through this 

challenge together.

ECF No. [32-7] at 2. On October 13, 2022, Perez answered as follows:

Thank you for the email and the solutions provided to start honest conversations. 

My apologies again for my challenges and it’s 100% on myself. Unfortunately, I 

held on longer then I should of before rightsizing the ship. Once again, 100% solely 

on the eyeballs in the mirror and great appreciate you guys along w the grace!!! I’ll 

get w my CFO to get this going asap. Thank you and apologies again for my 

challenges!!

ECF No. [32-7] at 1. The Agreement was not modified.

EPM could not stop performing without either modifying the Agreement or terminating it

in compliance with the Agreement’s terms. EPM did not do so. EPM cannot now invoke a material 

breach by JIM as a justification to escape its contractual obligations when it failed to comply with 

the Agreement’s process to do just that. 

The three alleged breaches by JIM did not excuse EPM’s non-payment on the Agreement

when EPM failed to comply with the Agreement’s requirement for termination in the event of a 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 15 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

16

material breach. JIM is entitled to summary judgment as to EPM’s liability on its failure to pay the 

Compensation agreed to in the Agreement (Count I).

ii. Damages

EPM asserts that JIM has failed to claim it was damaged by EPM’s purported breach, ECF 

No. [38] at 7, which JIM contests. ECF No. [43] at 6. Furthermore, JIM argues it is entitled to the 

entirety of the contractual compensation if it obtains summary judgment on Count I of its 

Complaint. ECF No. [33] at 9-11.4 JIM points to the relevant contractual clause to support its 

entitlement to monetary damages, ECF No. [33] at 9-11, which states as follows: 

Upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, all rights, duties, and obligations 

of the Parties shall automatically cease as of the date of expiration or termination; 

provided, in the event of termination pursuant to Company’s material breach of this 

Agreement, Company acknowledges that it shall remain responsible for paying JIM 

the entirety of the compensation set forth in the SOW.

ECF No. [7-1] at ¶ 7(c). 

EPM does not discuss damages in its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, ECF No. [38], nor in its Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [35]. In its Answer, 

EPM raised an affirmative defense as to damages: that Plaintiff may take no recovery because of 

its failure to mitigate damages. Affirmative Defense No. 12, ECF No. [10].

JIM has established that it suffered damages resulting from the breach. J.J. Gumberg Co., 

847 So. 2d at 1049. Plainly, EPM stopped paying the compensation it owed JIM on October 1, 

2022 in the amount of $187,500.00 a month. This non-payment damaged Plaintiff. 

4 In its Complaint, JIM sought:

to recover damages in an amount no less than $4,125,000.00, which accounts for the two 

(2) months of compensation unpaid under Year One of the Term ($375,000.00), plus the 

entire twelve (12) months of compensation due under Year Two of the Term 

($3,750,000.00), as well as a reimbursement from EPM of its reasonably incurred 

attorney’s fees and costs, post-judgment interest at the maximum statutory rate, and any 

other relief that the Court deems reasonable and just.

ECF No. [7] at 5-6.

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 16 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

17

However, issues of material fact remain as to the quantum of damages to which JIM is 

entitled. The day after JIM sent its Notice of Intent to Terminate, EPM also sent its written notice 

and alleged a material breach. See ECF Nos. [7-2], [32-1]. The breach by JIM on the social media 

post requirement, discussed below, is relevant to the extent of JIM’s recovery. Accordingly, there 

remains outstanding issues of material fact as to the amount of damages to which JIM is entitled. 

The Court accordingly declines to grant summary judgment to JIM on Count I as to damages.

Accordingly, the Court finds that JIM is entitled to summary judgment as to liability on 

Count I, EPM’s breach of contract claim, but not as to the amount of damages to which JIM is 

entitled.

B. Defendant’s Counterclaim: JIM’s Scope of Work and Use of Other 

Drivers

The Court next turns to the question of whether JIM or EPM are entitled to summary 

judgment as to Defendant’s Counterclaim, where EPM claims that JIM breached the Agreement

when (1) Iwuji failed to drive in each EPM-sponsored race; (2) JIM and Iwuji failed to comply 

with the social media post requirements and (3) Iwuji failed to appear on podcasts and failed to 

attend a live-event in quarter two of 2022. See generally ECF No. [35].

i. Iwuji’s Failure to Drive in Each EPM-Sponsored Race

EPM argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on its Counterclaim, ECF No. [10] at 

6-10. See generally ECF No. [35]. In its Counterclaim, EPM asserts that JIM breached the 

Agreement when it failed to have Jesse Iwuji drive for JIM in all eight EPM sponsored races. ECF 

No. [35] at 7-8. EPM points to various contractual clauses in the Agreement to argue that:

[T]he terms of the Agreement are clear that Jesse Iwuji was to be the sole and 

exclusive driver of the EPM sponsored races .... This is evident where: (a) the 

Agreement only provided the name, image and likeness rights for Jesse Iwuji and 

Emmitt Smith; (b) the Agreement provided that it would be Jesse Iwuji who would 

provide two social media posts in advance of each race; and (c) the Agreement 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 17 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

18

provided that Jesse Iwuji would appear quarterly at EPM for: (1) live-events; (2) 

podcasts; and (3) to create content.

ECF No. [38] at 10. JIM also seeks summary judgment as to EPM’s Counterclaim. ECF 

No. [33] at 11-17. JIM asserts that there is no provision in the Agreement requiring Iwuji to be the 

sole driver and that EPM’s intent is irrelevant in the face of an unambiguous agreement. Id. at 13-

17. 

JIM is correct that none of the clauses EPM references requires Iwuji to be the sole driver 

in EPM-sponsored races. The Court refuses to insert a contractual clause in the Agreement that the 

parties did not include. When presented with a clear and unambiguous contract, the “language [of 

the contract] itself is the best evidence of the parties' intent and its plain meaning controls[.]” Palm 

Beach Pain Mgmt., Inc. v. Carroll, 7 So. 3d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). 

EPM urges the Court to look at evidence extrinsic to the Agreement to determine that the 

intent of EPM when entering into the Agreement was that Jesse Iwuji would be the sole driver. 

ECF No. [35] at 9-10. EPM argues that it entered into the Agreement because of that belief, as it 

was drawn to “Iwuji’s story as a veteran and a minority to reach his dream with NASCAR, [a] 

story [that] perfectly aligned with EPM and its goal of ‘empowering people more.’” ECF No. [36-

7] ¶ 5. The Court declines to look at extrinsic evidence here as it is inconsistent with the terms of 

the Agreement. The parties made clear they intended the Agreement to incorporate their final 

agreement. Paragraph 12(c) of the Agreement states: “This Agreement constitutes the entire 

agreement and understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter herein and 

supersedes all prior written and oral agreements, discussions, or representations between the 

Parties relating to the subject matter herein.” ECF No. [7-1] ¶ 12(c).

Contrary to EPM’s contention, this is not a case where “two reasonable interpretations’ of 

a contract” exist, thus requiring “the submission of evidence extrinsic to the contract bearing upon 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 18 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

19

the intent of the parties” Ostrow v. GlobeCast Am. Inc., 825 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1270 (S.D. Fla. 

2011) (citations omitted). “If a contract's terms are clear and unambiguous, the language itself is 

the best evidence of the parties' intent and its plain meaning controls, warranting summary 

judgment.” Pearson v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 60 So. 3d 1168, 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)

(citation omitted). Moreover, under the parol evidence rule recognized in Florida law, “evidence 

of a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement is inadmissible to vary or contradict the 

unambiguous language of a valid contract. This rule applies when the parties intend that a written 

contract incorporate their final and complete agreement.” Ungerleider v. Gordon, 214 F.3d 1279, 

1282 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Looking to the contractual text, the Court finds no written 

requirement that Iwuji be the sole driver of JIM participating in NASCAR races. JIM accordingly 

did not breach the contract when other drivers than Iwuji drove in EPM-sponsored races.

Accordingly, EPM fails to establish it is entitled to summary judgment as to this aspect of 

its Counterclaim. Conversely, JIM has successfully established that it did not breach the 

Agreement when it used drivers other than Iwuji as there is no term in the Agreement requiring 

Iwuji to be the sole driver. ECF No. [33] at 12-14.

ii. Iwuji and JIM’s Failure to Post on Social Media

a. Liability

Next, the Court considers whether JIM or EPM, which both separately move for summary 

judgment on EPM’s Counterclaim, would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Iwuji’s 

failure to comply with the social media requirements of the SOW. JIM argues that EPM never 

notified JIM of its failure to produce a deliverable listed in the SOW. ECF No. [33] at 9-10. EPM 

argues that JIM breached its “Off-Track Team Commitments” in the following three ways. First, 

in the weeks leading into the March 5, 2022, July 16, 2022, July 23, 2022 and October 1, 2022

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 19 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

20

races, Iwuji failed to acknowledge and thank EPM as a sponsor on his social media channels, ECF 

No. [35] at 7, see also DSMF, ECF No. [36] ¶ 21, and JIM’s social media page failed to have any 

EPM dedicated posts in the weeks leading up to the March 5, 2022, May 28, 2022 or October 1, 

2022 races. Id. at ¶ 22. JIM disputes this fact, and states that Iwuji and JIM’s social media pages 

did dedicate posts to EPM in the weeks leading up to March 5, 2022, May 28, 2022 and October 

1, 2022 races. ECF No. [40] ¶ 22; Iwuji Declaration, ECF No. [40-2] ¶¶14, 15, 16-17. EPM argues 

those posts fall short of the contractual requirement because the March 4, 2022 post makes no 

reference to EPM; the July 11, 14, 15 2022 posts only include EPM, but does not thank EPM as a 

sponsor; the July 17, 2022 and July 24, 2022 only references EPM along with JIM’s other corporate 

sponsors Chevrolet and Coca Cola; and on the July 22, 2022 post, Iwuji has an EPM baseball cap 

and thanks Chevrolet, with no other reference to EPM. ECF No. [44] at 6-7.

The Agreement details the below social media requirements for JIM to comply with: 

• Two (2) Social media posts the week leading up to the race from 

JIM’s and Jesse Iwuji’s personal pages. One (1) JIM social media post-race 

thanking Equity Prime Mortgage for sponsoring team. Eight (8) social 

media posts from Emmitt Smith’s social media promoting Primary Races 

during 2022 and 2023 – caption to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties 

and should be focused on Primary Race partnership of race team.

ECF No. [7-1] at 8. 

On the first requirement, the record demonstrates that both JIM and Iwuji failed to comply 

with the requirement for two posts leading up to the race by JIM and Iwuji “from JIM’s and Jesse 

Iwuji’s personal pages.” Id. The Agreement expressly requires two posts from JIM and two posts 

from Iwuji. Both JIM and Iwuji failed to comply with these requirements. Iwuji issued at least two 

social media posts from his personal page in the weeks leading into the July 16, 2022, July 23, 

2022 and October 1, 2022 races. ECF No. [40-2] at ¶¶ 14(b)-(d). However, Iwuji only uploaded

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 20 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

21

one social media post in the week leading up to the March 5, 2022 race, and not two as required 

by the Agreement. Id. at ¶ 14(a).

Similarly, JIM failed to issue two social media posts in the week leading up to two races: 

JIM does not point to any posts made by JIM ahead of the July 16, 2022 and July 23, 2022 races. 

JIM issued only one post leading up to the October 1, 2022 race, and not two as required. Id. at 

¶ 17(c). However, JIM properly issued at least two social media posts in the weeks leading to the 

March 5, 2022 race. ECF No. [40-2] at ¶ 17. Accordingly, JIM and Iwuji failed to comply with the 

first requirement for two posts leading up to the race by JIM and Iwuji.

5

On the second requirement for a JIM social media post after the race thanking EPM for 

sponsoring the team, the record demonstrates that JIM failed to comply with the requirement that

JIM make one “social media post-race (sic) thanking Equity Prime Mortgage for sponsoring team.” 

ECF No. [7-1] at 8-9. Looking at JIM’s social media posts included in Iwuji’s Declaration, ECF 

No. [40-2], JIM complied with the requirement for a social media post after the race for the July 

23, 2022 race. On July 24, 2022, JIM posted a lengthy post on its Instagram page which concluded 

with:

We always want to thank our good Lord for keeping us safe at the 

track and affording us the opportunity to go after this journey and 

we want to give a big thanks to our partners at #epmortgages, 

#chevrolet, and #cocacola! #JIM #jesseiwujimotorsports #JIMszn 

5 As to this first requirement, the Agreement does not specify what content should be in the two 

social media posts uploaded by JIM and Iwuji before races, unlike the second requirement for an after-race 

post “thanking Equity Prime Mortgage” for sponsoring the team. ECF No. [7-1] at 8-9. The Agreement 

merely requires two “[s]ocial media posts the week leading up to the race from JIM’s and Jesse Iwuji’s 

personal pages.” ECF No. [7-1] at 8-9. Accordingly, the Court does not reach the questions of whether the 

posts were compliant with the Agreement when (a) Iwuji’s March 4, 2022 post made no reference to EPM, 

ECF No. [40-2] ¶ 17(a)((iii); (b) the July 11, 14, 15 2022 posts only included EPM, but did not thank EPM 

as a sponsor, id. at ¶ 14(b); (c) when Iwuji’s July 17, 2022 and July 24, 2022 posts only referenced EPM 

along with JIM’s other corporate sponsors Chevrolet and Coca Cola, id. at ¶¶14(c)(i), (iii); when on July 

22, 2022 post, Iwuji has an EPM baseball cap and thanked Chevrolet, with no other reference to EPM, id. 

at ¶ 14(c)(ii). The record establishes that JIM breached only when looking at the number of social media 

posts.

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 21 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

22

#TeamChevy #camaross #EPM #equityprimemortgage #coke 

#teamchevy #chevy #NASCAR

ECF No. [40-2] ¶14(c)(iii). The record does not include a social media post after the race thanking 

EPM by JIM for other races at issue.

EPM has alleged (a) a valid contract (b) a material breach and (c) has argued it suffered 

damages the social media breach, which is essential to be able to make out a breach of contract. 

See J.J. Gumberg Co., 847 So. 2d at 1049. EPM has established that JIM breached the Agreement 

when it failed to comply with some of its social media commitments set forth in ECF No. [7-1] at 

8. There is no genuine dispute of material fact as to that breach, and EPM is entitled to summary 

judgment as to liability pertaining to JIM’s breach of the social-media requirement set forth in the 

Agreement.

b. Damages

However, there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to the quantum of damages that 

EPM is entitled to pursuant to JIM’s breach. EPM does not specifically allege the extent of

damages suffered pursuant to the social media post requirement. ECF No. [35] at 10-11. The issue 

of the extent of damages EPM is entitled to pursuant to JIM’s breach on the social media post

requirement remains in front of this Court and shall be determined by a trier of fact. 

Accordingly, the Court grants EPM summary judgment as to liability regarding Iwuji and 

JIM’s failure to comply with their social media requirements but denies summary judgment as to 

damages on this issue. Conversely, the Court denies JIM summary judgment as to liability and 

damages on this aspect of EPM’s Counterclaim.

iii. Iwuji’s Failure to Appear on EPM podcasts and at an EPM Liveevent in Quarter 2

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 22 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

23

Finally, the Court considers whether JIM and EPM, which both separately move for 

summary judgment on EPM’s Counterclaim, would be entitled to summary judgment as to Iwuji’s 

failure to appear on podcasts and live virtual team talks. EPM claims that Jesse Iwuji only appeared

on one podcast quarterly during the ten-month sponsorship and failed to appear at a live virtual 

team talk in quarter 2 of 2022. ECF Nos. [35] at 10, [44] at 10. JIM does not dispute these facts 

but disputes that this constitutes a contractual breach, because EPM failed to propose dates for 

Jesse Iwuji’s attendance at virtual team talks, whose dates had to be “mutually agreed upon.” ECF 

No. [40] ¶ 23-24 (quoting SOW, ECF No. [7-1] at 8). Moreover, JIM argues that EPM failed to 

propose dates for Jesse Iwuji to appear on EPM’s podcast quarterly. Id. at ¶ 24. 

The Agreement states the appearance requirements as follows:

This SOW is subject to the terms and conditions of the Sponsorship 

Agreement dated November 16, 2021 by and between Equity Prime 

Mortgage, LLC, its affiliates and subsidiaries (the “Company” or " Equity 

Prime Mortgage”) and Jesse Iwuji Motorsports, LLC (“JIM”). This SOW 

sets forth the specific services to be provided (together, the “Services”), and 

work product to be delivered by JIM (together, the “Deliverables”) with 

regard to the project described herein (the “Project”), as well as the 

deliverables and deadlines for both JIM and Company, and any additional 

terms governing the relationship. Any defined terms in this SOW that are 

not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the 

Sponsorship Agreement.

...

• Jesse Iwuji to be available for Equity Prime Mortgage podcast once 

a quarter. The date, time, and location of the podcast taping shall be 

mutually determined by the Parties. Emmitt Smith available to join with 

Jesse for 2x podcast each year of agreement. Dates must be mutually agreed 

upon. 

• Jesse Iwuji to be available for a sixty (60) min virtual team talk 

addressing the Equity Prime Mortgage team once per quarter. Dates must 

be mutually agreed upon.

ECF No. [7-1] at 6, 8. Here, JIM states, and EPM does not contest, that EPM failed to 

propose dates relating to Jesse Iwuji’s appearance on podcasts once a quarter as well as to a sixtyminute virtual team talk. Response to DSMF, Additional Facts, ECF No. [40] ¶¶ 6-7. The language 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 23 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

24

of the contract indicates that these two commitments require “Jesse Iwuji to be available” 

(emphasis added) for both of these events. ECF No. [7-1] at 8. The Court must look to the “usual, 

natural, and ordinary meaning of the contractual language.” Pearson, 60 So. 3d at 1172. Doing so 

here, JIM did not breach its contractual obligations when Jesse Iwuji did not appear for a podcast 

or team talk when EPM did not specifically request his appearance. The Agreement does not 

require Iwuji to initiate these events or even mandate that Iwuji commit to these events, but rather 

asks Iwuji to be “available” for these events. In the absence of requests by EPM for Jesse Iwuji to 

appear on the EPM podcast and virtual team talk, Iwuji did not fail to make himself “available” to 

EPM for podcast appearances and virtual team talks. 

As the movant, EPM does not point to anywhere in the record where it requested Iwuji’s 

attendance at a podcast or team talk, for which Iwuji subsequently failed to make himself available. 

Since Iwuji was never asked to attend a podcast or team talk, JIM did not breach the Agreement 

under a plain reading of the contract. EPM has not carried its burden to establish it is entitled to 

summary judgment as to this issue as a matter of law. In contrast, JIM has carried its burden and 

established that as a matter of law Iwuji did not breach the Agreement when Iwuji failed to attend 

podcasts once a quarter and a virtual team talk. ECF No. [43] at 7. JIM is entitled to summary 

judgment as to this aspect of EPM’s Counterclaim.

JIM is entitled to partial summary judgment — and conversely EPM is not entitled to 

partial summary judgment — as to two aspects of EPM’s Counterclaim: there is no genuine dispute 

of material fact that JIM did not breach the Agreement when it used drivers other than Iwuji or 

when Iwuji failed to attend a virtual team event or podcasts. EPM is entitled to partial summary 

judgment — and conversely, JIM is not entitled to partial summary judgment — regarding Iwuji 

and JIM’s failure to post on social media, as there is no genuine issue of material fact that JIM 

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 24 of 25
Case No. 22-cv-62268-BLOOM/Valle

25

failed to comply with its social media requirement. Neither party is entitled to summary judgment 

as to the damages EPM can recover pursuant to JIM’s social media breach, as a genuine dispute 

of material fact remains regarding the extent of damages.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. JIM’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [33], is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in PART consistent with this Order.

2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [35], is GRANTED in part 

and DENIED in PART consistent with this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida on May 3, 2024.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2024 Page 25 of 25