# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 37 28

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ten si on Env el op e Co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

JB M En ve lo pe Co m

pa ny; Mar cu s G. Sh ean sh an g; Dani el J. Pu th of f

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 17 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 8, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Ten si on Env el op e Co rp or at io n su ed a fo rm er sup pl ie r, JB M Corp or at io n, fo r

se ll in g di rect ly to it s cu st om ers aft er pr om is in g no t to do so

. The di st ric t co ur t 1

The Hon or ab le Fern an do J. Gait an , Jr ., Uni te d St at es Dis tri c t Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.reject ed on e cl ai m on th e pl ead in gs an d th e ot he rs on su m m ary jud gm en t. W e affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ru li ng s.

I.

Ten si on an d JB M m an uf act ur e an d s e l l e n v el op es

. In la te 20 00 or 20 01
, Ten si on be ga n bu y in g fro m JB M a sp eci al type of en ve lo pe —s m al l, op en -en d

en ve lo pe s —t o res el l to cu st om ers

. Thre e of Te ns io n’s cu st om ers acco un te d fo r a

2 si gn ifi can t p erce nt ag e o f th e sa le s.

Acco rd in g t o Ten si on , J BM of fere d as su ran ces th at it wou ld no t s el l d ire ct ly

to Ten si on ’s cu st om ers

. On th ree se pa rat e oc cas io ns , ho wev er, JB M refu se d to si gn

a no n- co m

pe te ag reem en t. Afte r th es e refu sa ls
, Ten si on co nt in ue d to or der en ve lo pe s fro m JB M wit h i nd iv id ua l pu rch as e or de rs

. Ten si on ev en le as ed it s m an uf act ur in g
eq ui pm en t t o J BM t o p ro du ce t he en ve lo pe s.

Alt ho ug h JB M ha d so ld so m e en ve lo pe s to en d us ers si nc e at l eas t 20 01
, JB M’s ne w m an ag em en t i n 2 01 1 de ci de d to in crea se di rect sa le s. By 20 14
, JB M

I n Ten si on ’s o pe ni ng br ie f, it de sc rib es th e di ffer en t va rie ti es of en ve l o p e s 2

as fol lo ws:

Env el op es can be di vi de d in to on e of two types : op en si de or op en en d. A tra di ti on al m ai li ng en ve lo pe us ed
, fo r ex am pl e, to pa y b i ll s— an d whi ch cl os es wit h a fla p on th e lo ng si de of th e en ve lo pe —i s kn own as
an “ op en si de ” en ve lo pe

. Co nt ras t th is wit h th e typic al in te ro ffi ce
en ve lo pe , whi ch cl os es wit h a fla p on th e sh or t en d of th e en ve lo pe , an d whi ch is kn own as an “ op en en d” en ve lo pe

. W it hi n th e cat eg or y of op en
en d en ve lo pe s th ere is a type of su b- sp eci al ty en ve lo pe kn own as sm al l, op en en d en ve lo pe s. Ex am pl es of sm al l, op en en d en ve lo pe s in cl ud e
co in en ve lo pe s an d h ot el ke y card en ve lo pe s.
Ope ni ng Br. 4 -5 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.
-2

-de ci de d to se ll di r e c tl y to Ten si on ’s cu st om ers

. JB M hi red a co m m un ic at io ns

co ns ul ta nt to he lp wit h th e s tra te gy. The st rat eg y wor ke d, an d by Ju ne 20 14
, JB M

reac he d ag reem en ts wit h two of Ten si on ’s th ree la rg e cu st om ers

. JB M la te r tri ed to

se ll to th e th ird la rg e cu st om er’s c u st om ers

. Ten si on le arn ed of th e
ag reem en ts —t ho ug h it earl ie r ha d su sp ect ed so m et hi ng was afo ot —an d st ru gg le d to fin d a ne w su pp li er.

Ten si on fil ed it s co m

pl ai nt in Ju ne 20 14

. It la te r fil ed th ree am e nd ed

co m pl ai nt s an d na m ed JB M an d two of JB M’s co rp or at e of fic ers (co ll ect iv el y

“ JB M”) as de fen da nt s. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d un de r Fed e r a l R u l e of Ci vi l
Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 ) a cl ai m fo r m is ap pr op ria ti on of tra de se cret s. Afte r di sc ov ery, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d JB M’s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n on ev ery rem ai ni ng cl ai m

. Ten si on ap pe al ed

. 3

II

.

On ap pe al
, Ten si on ad va nc es se ve n arg um en ts

. Si x rel at e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s

su m m ary jud gm en t gr an t. Ten s i o n a r g u es th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng

su m m ary jud gm en t on it s cl ai m fo r (1 ) br each of co nt ract , ( 2) pr om is so ry es to pp el
, (3 ) frau du le nt m is r e pr es en ta ti on , (4 ) frau du le nt no nd is cl os ur e, (5 ) to rti ou s i n t e r fere nc e, an d (6 ) un fai r co m pe ti ti on

. Ten si on ’s fin al arg um en t rel at es to th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) of it s m is ap pr op ria ti on of tra de se cret s cl ai m

.

W e wil l ad dr es s each cl ai m in tu rn an d rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ru li ng s. Se e Tu rn er v. Hol br oo k
, 27 8 F.3 d 75 4, 75 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). In rev ie win g th e

The pa rti es fil ed th ei r br ie fs an d ap pe nd ix un de r se al

. A nu m be r of fil in gs in 3 th e di st ric t co ur t are se al ed as well

. “ W e co nc lu de th at it is un ne ces sa ry to se al th is op in io n, ho wev er, as it co nt ai ns no in fo rm at io n th at we de em co nf id en ti al .” Rak

es v. Li fe Inv ’r s In s. Co . of

Am. , 58 2 F .3d 88 6, 8 92 n.6 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

-3

-m ot io n to di sm is s, we acce pt “ well -p le ad ed al le ga ti on s in th e co m pl ai nt as tru e” an d dr aw “ al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or ” of Ten si on

. Se e S c h r ie ne r v. Qui cken
Lo an s, In c. , 7 74 F.3 d 44 2, 44 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). In rev ie win g th e gr an t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, we as k whe th er “ th ere is no ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact
, an d th e m ov in g
pa rty is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Tu rn er , 27 8 F.3 d at 75 7 (ci ti ng Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c))

. The pa rti es ag ree th at th e su bs ta nt iv e la w of Mi ss ou ri go ve rn s th e di sp ut e. Se e Dan ni

x Pai nt in g, LLC v. Sh er wi n- W il li ams Co

. , 73 2 F.3 d 90 2, 90 4 n.2 (8 th Cir . 20 13 )

.

A. Bre ac h o f Con tra ct

Ten si on fir st arg ue s th at JB M br eac h e d a req ui rem en ts co nt ract in se ll in g di rect ly to it s cu st om ers

. Und er Mi ss ou ri la w, a req ui rem en ts co nt ract is “ on e in whi ch on e pa rty pr om is es to su pp ly al l th e sp eci fic go od s or se rv ic es whi ch th e ot he r
pa rty may ne ed du rin g a cert ai n pe rio d at an ag reed pr ic e, an d th e ot he r pa rty
pr o mi s e s t h a t he wil l ob ta in hi s req ui red go od s or se rv ic es fro m th e fir st pa rty

ex cl us iv el y .” Ess co Geo metr ic v. Har va rd In du s. , 46 F.3 d 71 8, 72 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (em ph as is om it te d) (q uo ti ng Ki rk wo od –Ea st on Ti re Co

. v. St

. Lo ui s Ct y ., 56 8 S.W .2d
26 7, 26 8 (Mo

. 19 78 ) (en ba nc )). Ten si on co nt en ds th at th e pu rp or te d co nt ract
req ui red JB M “ to us e it s be st effo rts to su pp ly th e en ve lo pe s” to Ten si on an d pr ov id e

“ reas on ab le no ti ce” bef

or e te rm in at in g th e ag reem en t. Acco rd in g t o Ten si on , JB M br each ed bo th pro vi si on s wh en it st art ed sel li ng di rect ly to Ten si on ’s cus to m ers

.

The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at no en fo rcea bl e req ui rem en ts co nt ract ex is te d be twee n th e two co m

pa ni es , se e Ten si on Env el op e Co rp

. v. JBM Env el op e Co

. , No.
14 -5 67 -C V -W-FJG, at 19 (W. D. Mo

. Aug

. 22
, 20 16 ), an d we ag ree. Und er th e Mi ss ou ri s ta tu te of f

rau ds , and wit h e xc ep ti on s n ot rel ev an t h ere,

a co nt ract fo r th e s al e of go od s fo r th e pr ic e of fiv e hu nd red do ll ars or

m or e is no t en fo rcea bl e by way of act io n or de fen se un le ss th ere is so m e

-4

-writ in g su ffi ci en t to i n d i c a t e th at a co nt ract fo r sa le ha s be en m ad e

be twee n th e pa rti es an d si gn ed by th e pa rty ag ai ns t who m en fo rcem en t is so ug ht or b y

hi s au th or iz ed ag en t o r br ok er.

Mo

. Ann

. St at

. § 40 0.2 -2 01

. Ten si on co nc ed es th at th e pu rp or te d co nt ract in vo lv es

a sa le of go od s fo r m or e th an fiv e hu n d r e d do ll ars

. So Ten si on m us t pr of fer so m e writ in g “ su ffi ci en t t o i nd ic at e” t ha t an ag reem en t was reac he d. Se e id

.

Ten si on at te m

pt s to do so wit h two do cu m en ts

. The fir st is a le tt er fro m JB M’s
pr es id en t t o a Te n si on rep res en ta ti ve st at in g th at “ Ten si on an d JB M ha ve a
pa rtn ers hi p in whi ch Ten si on ha s sh ared m ach in ery an d kn owl ed ge wit h JB M.” The

se co nd do cu m en t is a pr om ot io na l pi ece no ti ng th at “ [o ]ver th e y ears , th e rel at io ns hi p

an d t ru st be twee n Ten si on an d J BM h as gro wn i nt o a pa rtn ers hi p.”

Th e s e do cu m en ts do no t sa ti sf y th e st at ut e of frau ds

. Rec al l th at a
req ui rem en ts co nt ract is “ on e in whi ch on e pa rty pr om is es to su pp ly al l th e sp eci fic
go od s or se rv ic es whi ch th e ot he r pa rty m ay ne ed du rin g a cert ai n pe rio d at an ag reed

pr ic e, an d th e ot he r pa rty pr om is es th at he wil l ob ta in hi s req ui red go od s or se rv ic es fro m th e fir st pa rty ex cl us iv e l y.” Ess co Geo metr ic , 46 F.3 d at 72 8 (em ph as is

om it te d)

. Ten si on ’s pr of fere d do c u men ts do “ no t co nt ai n an y te rm s” refe ren ci ng th os e el em en ts

. Se e How ar d Co ns t. Co

. v. Jef f-C ol e Qua rr ie s, In c. , 66 9 S.W .2d 22 1, 23 0 (Mo

. Ct

. A p p

. 19 83 ). Ten si on po in ts to te st im on y su pp or ti ng it s fav or ed in te rp ret at io n of th e wor d “ p a r t n e r s h i p,” bu t we can no t co ns id er or al ev id en ce in de te rm in in g “ whe th er t he st at ut e o f frau ds req ui rem en ts ha ve be en m et .” Se e id

. at 22 9. W it ho ut th at ev id en ce an d wit ho ut an y do cu m en ts be y on d th os e co nt ai ni ng ba re refe ren ces to “ pa rtn ers hi p,” we can no t co nc lu de th at Ten si on ha s sa ti sf ie d th e st at ut e 4

In a fo ot n o t e a nd wit ho ut el ab or at io n, Ten si on arg ue s th at th e in di vi du al 4
pu rch as e or de rs sa ti s f

y t h e s t a t ut e of frau ds

. Bu t Ten si on ha s no t id en ti fie d an y pu rch as e or de r—i n th e reco rd or el se whe re— su ffi ci en t to in d i c a t e a req ui rem en ts

co nt rac t

. Te n si on al so arg ue s th at a di st ric t co ur t de ci si on su pp or ts it s st at ut e-o ffrau ds co nt en ti on s. Se e Ups he r- Smi th La bs

., In c. v. Myl an La bs

., In c. , 94 4 F. Su pp

.
-5

-of frau ds

. As a res ul t, Ten si on an d JB M ha ve no en fo rcea bl e req ui rem en ts co nt ract

as a m at te r of

law.

B. Pro m is so ry Es to ppel

Ten si on ne xt se ek s rel ie f un de r th e do ct r in e of pr om is so ry es to pp el
, bu t th e Mi ss ou ri s ta tu te of frau ds ba rs th is cl ai m as well

. W he n th e st at ut e o f frau ds ba rs a

co nt ract cla im , all owi ng reco ve ry ba se d o n M is so ur i’s p ro m is so ry es to pp el “ wou ld ab ro ga te th e pu rp os e an d in te nt of th e le gi sl at ur e in en act in g th e st at ut e of frau ds an d

wou ld nu ll ify it s fu nd am en ta l req ui rem en ts .” Sa le s Se rv ., In c. v. Dae wo o In t’l Co rp

. , 77 0 S.W .2d 45 3, 45 7 (Mo . C t. App . 1 98 9)

. “ In fact ,” on e di st ric t co ur t c o n c lu de d,

“ no Mi ss ou ri Co ur t ha s rev iv ed a cl ai m ba rred by th e St at ut e of Frau ds us i ng th e do ct rin e of pr om is so ry es to pp el .” Ess co Geo metr ic

, In c. v. Har va rd In du s., In c. , No. 90 -1 35 4C (6 ), 19 93 W L 76 69 52
, at *4 (E.D. M o. Sep t. 30
, 19 93 ), af f’d su b no m

. Ess co Geo metr ic v. Har va rd In du s. , 46 F.3 d 71 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ). An “ ex tra or di na ry ” ci rcu m st an ce co ul d warra nt an ex cep ti on to th is ge ne ral ru le
, se e Geis in ge r v. A & B
Fa r m s , In c. , 82 0 S.W .2d 96
, 99 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 91 ), bu t th es e fact s are no t

ex tra or di na ry

. Ten si on vo lu nt ary ou ts ou rced it s m an uf act ur i n g t o a co m

pa ny th at
rep eat ed ly refus ed to si gn a no n- co m pe te ag reem en t.

C. Fraud ul ent Mi sr epre se nta tio n

Ten si on als o bri ng s a cl ai m fo r frau du le nt m is rep res en ta ti on

. Tha t clai m ha s ni ne ele m en ts un de r Mi ss ou ri l aw:

1 41 1, 14 25 -2 6 (D. Mi nn

. 19 96 ). Bu t th e writ in g th ere ex pr es sl y at te m pt ed t o

“ su m m ari ze wh at ha [d ] be en ag reed up on ” an d “ de ta il [ed ] th e m at eri al ter m s o f th e pa rti es ’ pu rp or te d ag reem en t.” Id

. Ten si on ha s po in te d to no si m il ar do cu m en t he re.

-6

-(1 ) a rep res en ta ti on ; (2 ) it s fal si ty; (3 ) it s m at eri al it y ; (4 ) th e sp eak er’s

kn owl ed ge of it s fal si ty or ig no ran ce of it s tru th ; (5 ) th e sp eak er’s in te nt t h a t i t sh ou ld be act ed on by th e pe rs on in th e m an ne r reas on ab l y
co nt em pl at ed ; (6 ) th e he arer ’s ig no ra n c e o f th e fal si ty of th e rep res en ta ti on ; (7 ) th e he arer ’s rel ia nc e on th e rep res en ta ti on be in g tru e; (8 ) th e he arer ’s rig ht to rel y th ereo n; an d (9 ) th e he arer ’s co ns eq ue nt an d pr ox im at el y

cau se d i nju ry

.

Frei ta s v. W

el ls Far go Home Mor tg
., In c. , 70 3 F.3 d 43 6, 43 8- 39 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). “ A
p l a i n t iff ’s fai lu re to es ta bl is h an y on e of th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of frau d is fat al to

reco ve ry .” Re n a i s sa nc e Lea si ng , LLC v. Verme er Mfg

. Co

. , 32 2 S.W .3d 11 2, 13 2 (Mo . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ).

Ten si on fo cu se s on thr ee al le ge d m is rep res en ta ti on s. The fir st co nc ern s JB M’s 20 12 st at em en t t h a t i t w o u ld be a go od pa rtn er be cau se it was a “ tra de on ly

m an uf act ur er.” W he th er thi s st at em en t qu al ifi es as a m is rep res en ta ti on de pe nd s on it s m ean in g— ab ou t whi ch so m e di sp ut e ex is ts

. In it s op en in g br ie f, Ten si on writ es th at “re f e r e nc es to se ll in g to th e ‘trad e’ refe r to se ll in g to ‘oth er en ve lo pe

c o mp a ni es .’ ” If Ten si on so ld “ on ly” to th e tra de
, th en pr es um ab ly it wou l d s e l l

“ on ly” to ot he r en ve lo pe co m pa ni es

. Ten si on kn ew f r o m t h e be gi nn in g of th e rel at io ns hi p, ho wev er, th at JB M so ld di rect ly to so m e en d us ers

. Ten si on ’s ch ie f
op erat in g of

fic er ack no wled ge d th at he “ kn ew co nt in uo us ly fro m 20 01 to 20 14 th at [J BM] so ld to di rect en d us ers .” So if “ tra de on ly m an uf act ur er” ha s th e m ean in g Ten si on ap pa ren tl y as cri be d to it in th e br ie fs
, th en Ten si on can no t cl ai m “ ig no ran ce of th e fal si ty of th e rep res en ta ti on .” Se e Fre it as , 70 3 F .3d at 4 38 -3 9.

If we in st ead lo ok to th e rec or d, “ tra de on ly m an uf act ur er” ap pe ars to ha ve a d i f f e r e n t m ean in g. Bo th Ten si on an d JB M st at e th ere th at “ tra de -o nl y en ve lo p e

m an uf act ur ers al so ha ve di rect acco un ts .” Acco rd in g to Ten si on , J BM’s st at em en t th at it qu al ifi ed as a “ tra de on ly m an uf act ur er” was a m is rep res en ta ti on , be cau se JB M
po ss es se d a “ pr es en t in te nt ” in 20 12 to ceas e op erat in g as a tra de -o nl y m an uf act ur er.

-7

-Se e So

fk a v. Th al
, 66 2 S.W .2d 50 2, 50 7 (Mo

. 19 83 ) (en ba nc ) (n ot in g th at a “ pr om is e

acco m pa ni ed by a pr es en t in te nt no t to pe r f o r m i s

. . . su ffi ci en t to co ns ti tu te

a ct io na bl e frau d” (em

ph as is om it te d) ). The reco rd do es su gg es t th at as far b a c k a s 20 11
, JB M pl an ne d to in crea se di rect sa le s. Bu t if a “ tra de on ly m an uf act ur er” ne ed

no t se ll on ly to th e tra de
, th en it is un cl ear— at le as t fro m Ten si on ’s br ie fs —at wha t
po in t in crea si ng di rect sa le s ren de rs t h e t r a d e-o nl y de si gn at io n fal se

. W it ho ut a de fin it e m ean in g fo r th e te rm , Ten si on ha s fai le d to su ffi ci en tl y sh ow “ fal si ty.” Se e Frei ta s , 70 3 F.3 d at 43 8- 39 ; se e al s o Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c)( 1)

. Bec au se no

“ reas on ab le jury co ul d re tu rn a ve rd ic t” for Tens io n o n t hi s cl ai m , th e d is tri ct co ur t di d no t err in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t. Se e And er so n v. Li be rt

y Lo bb y, In c. , 47 7 U.S. 24 2, 24 8 (1 98 6) ; se e a l s o C e l o t e x Co rp

. v. Ca tr et t , 47 7 U.S. 31 7, 32 3 (1 98 6) (“ The m ov in g pa rty is ‘ent it le d to a ju d g ment as a m at te r of la w’ be cau se th e

no nm ov in g pa rty ha s fai le d to m ak e a su ffi ci en t sh owi ng on an es se nt ia l el em en t of he r cas e wit h re sp ect to whi ch sh e h as th e b ur de n o f pr oo f.”).

Eve n if T en si on di d su ffi ci en tl y sh ow fals it y , Ten si on wou ld ha ve la ck ed th e “ri g h t t o rel y ” on th e st at em en t. Se e Frei ta s , 70 3 F.3 d at 43 8- 39

. A “m u t u a l

reco gn it io n of th e un cert ai nt y of a gi ve n fact ” ren de rs r el ia nc e on th e as se rte d fact

un jus ti fie d. Se e Empi re Gas Co rp

. v. Sma ll ’s LP Gas Co

. , 63 7 S.W .2d 23 9, 24 3 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 82 ). Tha t was th e co nc lu si on of th e Mi ss ou ri Co ur t of App eal s in Empi re G a s Co rp

. v. Sma ll ’s LP Gas Co

. , whe re a se ll er ha d reac he d a writ te n ag r e e men t wit h a bu y er de li ne at in g th ei r res pe ct iv e rig ht s in th e ev en t a pa rti cu la r rep res en ta ti on by th e se ll er pr ov ed fal se

. Se e id

. at 24 3- 44

. If th e bu y er “ di d in de ed rel y up on th at
pa rti cu la r rep res en ta ti on ,” th e co ur t as ke d, th en “ why di d it in si st up on ” th e se pa rat e
ag reem en t? Id

. The sa m e lo gi c ap pl ie s he re. Ten si on rep e a t e d l y as ke d th at JB M si gn a no n- co m

pe te ag reem en t, and JB M rep eat ed ly refus ed

. If T en si on di d in de ed rel y up on th e tra de

- o n l y man uf act ur er de si gn at io n, th en why rep eat ed ly in si st on a

-8

-no n- co m

pe te ag reem en t? The se rep eat ed at te m pt s to reac h an ag reem en t, an d

rep eat ed refu sa ls , ren de red an y rel ia nc e u nju st ifi ed as a m at te r of law. Se e id

. 5

The se co nd al le ge d m is r e p r e se nt at io n in vo lv ed a res po ns e to a qu es ti on

. In
Mar ch 20 14
, aft er a Ten si on rep res en ta ti ve as ke d wha t he co ul d do fo r JB M, JB M’s
pr es id en t res po nd ed : “ Bri ng us m or e bu si ne ss .” W e can no t se e ho w th is co ns ti tu te s

a m is rep res en ta ti on at al l. Not hi ng su p p or ts th e pr op os it io n th at JB M ne ces sa ril y

wou ld ha ve reject ed ad di ti o n a l b u si ne ss fro m Ten si on

. Ten si on em ph as iz es th at a
st at e men t co nv ey in g a “ fal se im pr es si on ” can qu al ify as a m is rep res en ta ti on un de r Mi ss ou ri la w. Se e W

io n v. Ca rl I. Bro wn & Co

. , 8 08 S.W .2d 95 0, 9 54 -5 5 (M o. Ct

. App . 19 91 ); see al

so Uni te d In du s. S

yn di ca te , Inc . v. W

. Aut o Su pp ly Co

. , 68 6 F .2d
13 12
, 13 18 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 82 ). Bu t ev en if JB M’s an swe r crea te d a fal se im pr es si on —wh ic h we do ub t— th e fal se im pr es si on was th at JB M w oul d not co m pe te wit h Ten si on

. Fo r th e reas on s al read y de sc rib ed
, Ten si on ha d no rig ht to rel y on su ch

a rep res en ta ti on gi ve n JB M’s rep eat ed refu sa l to si gn a no n- co m pe te ag reem en t. Se e Empi re Gas , 63 7 S .W .2d at 2 43 -4 4.

The th ird al le ge d m is rep res en ta ti on al so in vo lv ed a res po ns e to a qu es ti on

. In
Ju ne 20 14
, sh or tl y be fo re JB M ap pr oa ch ed Ten si on ’s cu st om ers , Ten si on as ke d JB M

to c o p y i t on al l fu tu re co m m un ic at io ns wit h it s cu st om ers

. JB M’s pr es id en t
ag reed —t ho ug h he di d no t fo ll ow t hr ou gh

. Su m m ary jud gm en t was pr op er on th is cl ai m fo r a no w-fam il ia r reas on

. By Ju ne 20 14
, Ten si on su sp ect ed th at JB M wou ld

ap pr oa c h i t s c u s t o mer s, an d es pe ci al ly at th is la te da te , it ha d no rig ht to rel y on a
st at em en t su gg es ti ng ot he rwis e. Se e id

. ; se e al so Ch il dr en ’s Bro ad

. Co rp

. v. W al t Dis ne y Co

. , 2 45 F.3 d 10 08 , 1 02 0- 21 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1) (rea ch in g a si m il ar co nc lu si on

Ten si on als o i m

pl ie s t ha t J BM’s as se rti on th at it wou ld be a “ go od pa rtn er” 5

co ul d co ns ti tu te a di st in ct m is rep res en ta ti on

. To th e ex te nt Te n si on m ak es th at arg um en t, th e al le ge d fal si ty wou ld flo w fro m JB M ’s se ll in g di rect ly to Ten si on ’s

cu st om ers . This m is rep res en ta ti on cla im fai ls for th e rea so ns de sc rib ed ab ov e.

-9

-un de r Mi nn es ot a la w )

. JB M th eref or e was en ti tl ed to su m

m ary jud gm en t on th e frau du le nt m is rep res en ta ti on cla im

. Se e And er so n , 47 7 U.S. at 24 8

.

D. Fra udul ent No ndi sc lo su re

Ten si on ’s cl ai m fo r frau du le nt no nd is cl os ur e fare s no be tt er. A frau d ul en t

no nd is cl os ur e cl ai m in vo lv es th e s am e ni ne el em en ts as a cl ai m fo r frau du le nt

m is rep res en ta ti on , ex ce pt “ a pa rt y ’ s silen ce am ou nt s to a rep res en ta ti on whe re th e la w im po se s a du ty to sp eak .” Hes s v. Ch as e Man ha tt an Ban k
, 22 0 S.W .3d 75 8, 76 5 (Mo

. 20 07 ) (en ba nc ). Ten si on cl ai m s th at JB M’s fail ur e to di sc lo se it s pl an s to in crea se di rect sal es am ou nt ed to frau d.

In th e m os t an al og ou s Mi ss ou ri cas e, ho we v e r , t he co ur t reject ed a si m il ar cl ai m

. In Bla in e v

. J

. E. J o n e s Co ns t. Co

. , ho m e pu rch as ers fil ed su it ag ai ns t a de ve lo pe r fo r fai li ng to di sc lo se it s pl an s to bu il d a ne arb y ap art m en t co m pl ex

. 84 1 S.W .2d 70 3, 70 4 (Mo . C t. App . 1 99 2)

. The Mi ss ou ri Co ur t o f A p p e a l s ov ert ur ne d th e jury ve rd ic t in fav or of th e pu rch as ers

. Id

. In do in g so , th e co ur t fo cu se d on th e

m ark et effe ct of a co nt rary ru li ng

. A “ de ve lo pe r’s de ci si on ab ou t dev el op in g is no t ab so lu te bu t can an d pr ob ab ly wil l ch an ge de pe nd in g on th e m ark et pl ace,” it wro te

. Id

. at 70 9. “ To sa dd le a de ve lo pe r wit h an affi rm at iv e du ty to di sc lo se th es e de ci si on s

as th ey va ry wou ld act as a st rai gh t jack et th at th e m ark et pl ace d oe s n ot ne ed .” Id

. ;

se e al so La kes id e Feed

er s, In c. v. Pro du cer

s Li ves to ck Mkt

g. Ass ’n
, 66 6 F.3 d 10 99
, 11 08 -0 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (rea ch in g a si m il ar co nc lu si on un de r Io wa la w). Tha t sa m e lo gi c ap pl ie s h ere.

In su pp or t of a di sc lo su re du ty, Ten si on in v o k e s c e r t ai n pr ov is io ns of th e Res ta te m en t (Seco nd ) of Tort s § 55 1. Se e id

. § 55 1( 2) (b ) & (c) (d es cri bi ng cert ai n di sc lo su re req ui rem en ts ). By th ei r own te rm s, ho wev er, th os e pr ov is io ns ap pl y on ly

“ be fo re th e tra ns act io n is c o ns um m at ed .” Id

. § 55 1 (2 ) ; se e al so Hen ne pi n Ct y. v. AFG In du s., In c. , 72 6 F.2 d 14 9, 15 3 ( 8 t h C ir. 19 84 ). Ten si on cl ai m s th at be cau se

-1 0-co nsum

m at ion “ m ay be eq ua te d wit h su bs ta nt ia l pe rfo rm an ce in th e co ntr ac t co nte xt, ”

s e e H e n n e pi n Ct y. , 72 6 F.2 d at 15 3

, an d be cau se JB M ha s no t “ su bs ta nt ia ll y
pe rfo rm ed ” un de r th e pu r p o rte d req ui rem en ts co nt ract , JB M ha d a co nt in ui ng di sc lo su re du ty. Yet we ha ve al read y fo un d th at no en fo rcea bl e req ui rem en ts co nt ract

e x i s t e d
, an d Ten si on ha s no t arg ue d th at th e pu rch as e or de rs tri gg ered th e Res ta te m en t du ty. As a res ul t, Ten si on ha s no t su ffi ci en tl y de m on st rat ed a du ty un de r th e Res ta te m en t.

Ten si on ’s ot he r arg um en ts are si m il arl y un pe rs ua si ve

. It arg u e s t ha t th e frau du le nt no nd is cl os ur e cl ai m pr es en ts a fact is su e t h a t is “ si m pl y pa rt of th e ul ti m at e jury qu es ti on .” Se e Uni te d In du s. Sy nd ic at e, In c. v. W

. Aut o Su pp ly Co

. , 68 6 F.2 d 13 12
, 13 19 (8 th Ci r. 19 82 ). Bu t it s so le au th or it y fo r th at pr op os it io n pr ed at es

no t on ly Bla in e , bu t al so th e tri lo gy of 19 86 S u p r e me Co ur t cas es “ whi ch req ui res

co ur ts to tre at mo t io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t m or e ho sp it ab ly.” Ch ic ag o In s. Co

.
v. Far m Bur ea u Mut

. I

n s

. C o. of Ark., In c. , 92 9 F.2 d 37 2, 37 3 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ).
Ten si on ha s no t rai se d a fact is su e th at “ m ig ht affe ct th e ou tc om e of th e su it ,” so
gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t was not erro ne ou s. Se e And er so n , 47 7 U.S. at 24 8

. In it s rep ly br ie f, Ten s i o n p iv ot s an d arg ue s fo r a di sc lo su re du ty on ot he r ba se s, bu t th os e arg um en ts co m e to o la te

. Se e Neb

. St at e Leg is la ti ve Bd., Uni te d Tr an sp

. Uni on v. Sl at er , 24 5 F .3d 65 6, 6 58 n.3 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1)

.

One fin al reas on al so su pp or ts s u mm ary jud gm en t on th is cl ai m

. Rec al l th at fo r th e frau du le nt no nd is cl os ur e cl ai m , Ten si on m us t es ta bl i s h t h e sa m e ni ne

m is rep res en ta ti on el em en ts , ex cep t “ a pa rty’ s si le nc e am ou nt s t o a rep res en ta ti on whe re the la w im

po se s a du ty to sp eak .” Se e Hes s , 22 0 S .W .3d at 76 5. In th is cas e, Empi re Gas pr ov id es an in de pe nd en t reas on fo r gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t. Giv en JB M’s rep eat ed refu sa ls to si gn a no n- co m pe te ag reem en t, Ten si on ha d no rig ht to
eq ua te JB M’s si le nc e wit h a co m m it m en t no t to co m

pe te

. Se e Empi re Gas

, 63 7 S.W .2d at 2 43 -4 4.

-1 1-E. To rti ou s I nter fere nce

Ten si on al so cl ai m s th at JB M co m m it te d to rti ou s in te rfer en ce in it s at te m pt s
t o s el l di rect ly to Ten si on ’s cu st om ers

. “ Tort io us in te rfer en ce wit h a co nt ract o r bu si ne ss ex pe ct an cy req ui res pr oo f of : (1 ) a co nt ract or va li d b u s i n es s ex pe ct an cy ; (2 ) de fen da n t ’s k n o w le dg e of th e co nt ract or rel at io ns hi p; (3 ) a br each in du ced or

cau se d by d efen da nt ’s i n t e nt io na l in te rfer en ce; (4 ) ab se nc e of jus ti fic at io n; an d (5 ) da m ag es .” Na ze ri v. Mo. Va ll ey Co ll

. , 86 0 S.W .2d 30 3, 31 6 (Mo . 1 99 3) (en ba nc ).
So lo ng as th e de fen da nt do es no t em pl oy im pr op er m ean s— su ch as th reat s, vi ol en ce,
tre sp as s, de fam at io n, res tra in t of tra de
, or m is rep res en ta ti on o f f a c t— eco no m ic in te res t pr ov id es su ffi ci en t jus ti fic at io n fo r an al le ge d in te rfer en ce. Se e id

. at 31 6- 17 ;

se e al so Oth er s Fir st
, In c. v. Bett er Bus

. Bur ea u of Gre at er St

. Lo ui s, In c. , 82 9 F.3 d
57 6, 5 79 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

Ten si on do es no t arg ue th at JB M la ck ed su ffi ci en t eco no m ic in ter es t. It in st ead cl ai m s th at JB M em

pl oyed im pr op er m ean s. In pa rti cu la r, Ten si on sa y s th at in JB M’s

mee t i ng s wit h it s cu st om ers , JB M im pr op erl y st at ed th at Ten si on was a di sh o n e s t

co m pa ny. Ten si on ’s so le pi ece of ev id en ce fo r th is cl ai m , th ou gh
, i s t h e “ Mo on ey Mem or an du m ”: a do cu m en t pr ep ared by JB M’s co m m un ic at io ns co ns ul ta nt be fo re th e m eet in gs t o o k p la ce. Ten si on em ph as iz es th at JB M rev ie wed th e Mo on ey Mem or an du m

in pre pa rat io n fo r th e m eet in gs

.

Yet ev ery pi ece of ev id en c e fro m in di vi du al s at th e m eet in gs in di cat es th at JB M rep res en ta ti ve s di d no t sa y th e al le ge d fal se ho od s su gg es te d in th e

m em or an du m

. The reco rd co nt ai ns m ul ti pl e de cl arat io ns fro m no n- JM B in di vi du al s
at th e m eet in gs , f

o r e x a mple
, who affi rm th at JB M di d no t di sp arag e Ten si on

. Ten si on at ta ck s th e cred ib il it y of th es e wit ne ss es , bu t it ha s of fere d no th in g to su pp or t i t s al le ga ti on of di sh on es ty. Se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c)( 1)

. In de ed
, an in te r n a l d o c u men t fro m on e of th e la rg e cu st om ers sh ows th at th e cu st om er ag reed to wo r k wit h JB M be c a u s e of co st sa vi ng s, no t di st ru st of Ten si on

. Ten si on ci te s Uni te d

-1 2-St at es v. Co rp s. fo r Ch ar ac te r, L.C

. , w h ic h fo un d a ge nu in e di sp ut e whe th er

te le m ark et ers us ed cert ai n sc rip ts in th ei r cal ls
, bu t t h e e v i d e nc e in th at cas e was

co nf li ct in g. 11 6 F. Su pp

. 3d 12 58
, 12 70 -7 1 (D. Utah 20 15 ). It is no t he re. Giv en th e

ev id en ce, no “ reas on ab le jury co ul d ret ur n a ve rd ic t fo r” Ten si on

. Se e And er so n , 47 7 U.S. at 2 48

. 6

F. Unfai r Competi tio n

The fin al cl ai m reject ed on s u mm ary jud gm en t co nc ern s th e to rt of un fai r

co m pe ti ti on . Mis so ur i co ur ts ha ve de sc rib ed th e to rt a s a “ reaf fir m at io n o f th e ru le of fai r pl ay ” an d a pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t co m pa ni es de cei vi ng th e pu bl ic

. Se e Cu sh man

v. Mut to n Hol lo w La nd Dev., In c. , 78 2 S.W .2d 15 0, 15 7- 59 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 90 ); se e al so Am. E qu it y Mo rt g., In c. v. Vin so n , 37 1 S.W .3d 62
, 64 –6 5 (Mo

. Ct . App . 20 12 ) (d es cri bi n g t h e do ct rin e). The y ha ve rem ark ed at th e do ct rin e’s “ el us iv e” na tu re. Se e, e.g

. , Cu sh man , 78 2 S.W .2d at 15 7. Ten si on arg ue s th at JB M co m m it te d th is to rt in “ pl ot ti ng to st eal Tens io n’s cu st om ers .”

W e ne ed no t de li ne at e th e pr eci se co nt ou rs of th e do ct rin e to reject th e cl ai m

. Ten si on si m

pl y ha s no t su pp or te d it s as se rti on of un fai rn es s. JB M act ed wit h sh arp el bo ws— as bu si ne ss es of te n do

. Bu t no th in g req ui red th em to affi rm at iv el y di sc lo se th ei r st rat eg ic pl an s. Ten si on ci te s to th e Res ta te m en t (Thi rd ) of Unf ai r Co m pe ti ti on
to su pp or t it s cl ai m , bu t ev en th is pu rp or te dl y he lp fu l au th or it y mak e s c l ear th at

“ ne it he r ne w en tra nt s no r ex is ti ng co m pe ti to rs wil l be su bjec t to li ab il it y fo r ha rm

res ul ti ng so le ly fro m th e fact of th ei r p a r t i c i pa ti on in th e m ark et .” Id

. § 1 cm t. a (1 99 5)

. Ten si on ci te s no cas e fin di ng li ab il it y in ci rcu m st an ces si m il ar to th is cas e. W e th eref

or e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m

.

In a fo ot no te in it s rep ly br ie f, Ten si on arg ue s th at JB M’s us e of in fo rm at io n 6 de riv ed fro m sh ip pi ng rel eas es is su ed by Ten si on co ns ti tu te s im pr op er m ean s. W e de cl in e to ad dr es s th is ne w is su e. Se e Neb

. St at e Leg is la ti ve Bd.
, 24 5 F.3 d at 65 8 n.3

. -1 3-G. Mis ap pro pri at io n o f Tra de Se cret s

In it s Fi rs t Am en de d Co m pl ai nt , Ten si on al le ge d th at JB M m is ap pr op ria t e d

two tra de se cret s: th e “ id en ti ty of it s cu st om ers an d th ei r un iq ue req ui rem en ts .” Se e Mo . Ann . Sta t. § 41 7.4 53 (Mi ss ou ri Uni fo rm Trad e Sec ret s Act ). After co nc lu di ng th at ne it he r qu al ifi ed as a tra de se cret un de r Mi ss ou ri la w, th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e cl ai m un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ). Se e Ten si on En v e l o p e Co rp

. v. JBM Env el op e Co

. , No. 1 4- 56 7- CV-W-FJG, 2 01 5 WL 89 32 42 , at * 8 (W.D. Mo. Ma r. 3, 2 01 5)

.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in do in g so

. In W es te rn Blu e Pri nt Co

. v. Rob er ts , th e Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at whi le th e “ cu st om ers co n t a ct s” in th at

cas e were “ pr ot ect ab le , t he y are no t pr ot ect ab le un de r a th eo ry o f

. . . t rad e se cret .” 36 7 S.W .3d 7, 18 (Mo

. 20 12 ) (en ba nc ). Ten si on o f f e r s n o p e rs ua si ve reas on why
W es te rn Blu e sh ou ld no t ap pl y he re. It in vo ke s a Mi ss ou ri Co ur t of App eal s cas e fo r
arg ua bl y a co nt rary pr op os it io n, se e Bro wn v. Rol le t Bro s. Tr uc ki ng Co

. , 29 1 S.W .3d
76 6, 77 7 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 09 ), bu t to th e ex te nt th e de ci si on s co nf li ct , we fo ll ow th e l a w a s in te rp ret ed by t he Mi ss ou ri Su pr em e Co ur t, se e Uni te d Fir e & Ca s. In s. Co

.
v. Gar vey , 32 8 F.3 d 41 1, 41 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). Bas ed on W es te rn Blu e , th e id en ti ty of
Ten si on ’s cus to m ers is no t p ro te ct ab le as a tra de sec ret

.

Fo r Ten si on ’s cl ai m rel at ed to it s cu st om ers ’ req u i r e m en ts , no Mi ss ou ri
Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on sp eak s di rect ly to th e is su e. Bu t th e in te rm ed ia te ap pe ll at e de ci si on on whi ch W

es t er n Blu e rel ie d do es ad dr es s th e qu es ti on

. In W al te r E.
Zemi tz sc h, I n c. v. Har ri so n , th e co ur t no te d th at in fo rm at io n rel at ed “ to th e

cu st om ers ’ in di vi du al req ui rem en ts ” was no t a tra de se cret , be cau se it was

“ in fo rm at io n ob ta in ab le wit hout re co ur se to m is ap pr op ria ti on .” 71 2 S.W .2d 41 8, 42 1 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 86 ) (al te rat io n om it te d) (q uo ti ng M et al Lu bri ca nts Co

. v. Eng in eer ed
Lu br ic an ts Co

. , 28 4 F.Su pp

. 48 3, 48 8 (E.D. Mo

. 19 68 ), af f’d
., 41 1 F.2 d 42 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 69 )). The sa m e i s t r u e he re. Acco rd in g to th e am en de d co m pl ai nt , Ten si on ’s

en ve lo pe s co m

pl ie d wit h te ch ni cal sp e c ifi cat io ns ge ne rat ed no t by Ten si on , bu t by

-1 4-th e cu st om ers th em se lv es

. The r eq ui rem en ts are “ th ei r”— th e cu st om ers ’—

req ui rem en ts

. Ten si on em ph as iz es th at th e am en de d com pl ai nt co nt ai ns refe ren ces
to m an uf act ur in g pr oc es se s, whi ch co ul d qu al ify as tra de se cret s. Se e Na t’l Reje ct or s, In c. v. Tr ie man , 40 9 S.W .2d 1, 18 (Mo

. 19 66 ) (en ba nc ). Bu t th e am en de d co m pl ai nt
rep eat ed ly st at es th at th e rel ev an t tra de se cret is th e cu st om ers ’ re q u i r e men ts , an d
Ten si on ci te s no cas e fo r th e pr op os it io n th a t th e cu st om er can ge ne rat e th e
pr ot ect ab le in fo rm at io n. Se e, e.g

. , Co ns eco Fin

. Se rv ic in g Co rp

. v. N. Am. Mor tg

. Co

. , 38 1 F.3 d 81 1, 81 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (d is cu ss in g in fo rm at io n ge ne rat ed by a se ll er’s

“ pr op rie ta ry co m

pu te r pr og ram ”)

. Bec au se th e req ui rem en ts are “ in fo rm at io n whi ch
JB M co ul d ha ve acq ui red fro m th e cu st om ers th e ms e l ve s,” se e Ten si on Env el op e Co rp

. , 20 15 W L 89 32 42
, at *8
, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in co nc lu di ng th at Ten si on fai le d t o s ta te a cl ai m for m is ap pr op ria ti on of t rad e se cret s.

II I.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 5-