2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-22-2010 

# O mni C redit Al li ance v

. K e nnedy Funding Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1078

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Omni C r e d it All i anc e v

. Ke nne dy F und in g Inc " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1681. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1681NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 08- 1078

__________ OM NI CRE DI T AL LI ANCE, I NC.

v. KENNEDY FUNDI NG, I NC. ; J OSE P H W OLF ER; J EF F REY WO LF ER, D efen dan t s/ T hir d-PartyP l anti ffs,
v. K EN N ETH RE A V ES, T h ird -P a rtyD e f e n d a n t, K e n n e d yF u n d in g , In c ., A p p e llan t.

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 04- cv- 04764) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. Pet erG . Sher i dan S u b mi t t e d u n d e rT h i r d Ci r c u i tL AR

on J ul y16, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 22, 2010)2 O P I N I O N RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: O m n i C re d it A lli a n c e , In c ., b ro u g h t su it se e k in g th e re tu rn o f $ 2 6 0 ,0 0 0 it p a id to K e n n e d yF u n d in g , In c ., in a p p lic a tio n a n d c o m m itm e n t f e e s f o r a lo a n th a t n e v e r c lo s e d . A ft era benc h t r i al , t he D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed r es ci s s i on of the l oan agr eement , fi ndi ng t hat“both par t i es w er e enga gi ng i n s ubt er fuge a nd chi cane r y ” and ha d br eac hed the i m pl i ed cove nantof good fa i t h and fa i rdeal i ng. K ennedyhas t i m el yappea l ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1332. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r a n d its e v id e n tia ry ru lin g s f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See U

ni t ed S t a t e s v . I

g b o n wa , 1 2 0 F .3 d 4 3 7 , 4 4 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); A f f i l i at ed M f rs . , I nc. v. A l um i num Co
. o f A m. , 5 6 F .3 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 5

– 2 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). W e a ss u m e th e p a rties ’ f a m ili a rityw ith t he fa ctual and pr ocedur al hi s t or y , w hi ch w e des cr i be onl yas nece s s aryt o expl ai n our d e c i s i o n . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. K ennedyar gues , fi r s t , t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byi m pos i ng a cove nantof good fai t h t o i t s “pr e- contr actnegot i at i ons ” w i t h O m ni . T hi s ar gum entdoes nothel p K ennedy b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n is sup p o rt ed b yit s fin d ing s reg ard ing K en n ed y ’s pos t - comm i t m entagr eementbehavi or— t o w i t , i t s fai l ur e t o negot i at e a f i nal deal i n good f a ith b y(1 ) m e re ly“ d e f

lec tin g O m n i’s c o llate ra l p ro p o sa ls a n d re jec tin g th e m w ith little3

expl anat i on” and ( 2) decl i ni ng t o “t ake a nyr eas onabl e s t eps t o cl os e the l oan. ” G i ven the highl ydefe rent i al st and ard of revi ew , w e w i l l no tdis turb t hese findi ng s. S e c o n d , K e n n e d ya rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s a n d c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i ons l acke d s uppor ti n t he r ecor d and thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l ys hi ft ed th e b u rd e n o f

p ro o f. W e d isa g re e . T h e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t th e p rin c ip a ls o f b o th p a rties lac k e d c re d ib ili tya n d b a se d its sp e c if ic f a c tu a l f in d in g s o n th e se c re d ib ili ty determ i nati on s. T hi r d, K ennedyar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n excl udi ng document aryevi dence conce r ni ng a conc ur r entand par al l el l oan comm i t m entagr eement in w h ich O m n i w as th e len d er. A s O m n i po ints ou t, h o w ev er, th e D istri ct C o u rt perm i t t ed cr os s - exami nat i on aboutt he par al l el l oan comm i t m entt r ans act i on, and K e n n e d yis h a rd -p re ss e d to sh o w a n yp re ju d ice a ss o c iate d w ith th e e x c lu sio n , p a rticu lar ly g iven the c o ll ateral n ature o f th e d o cu m en t. A t m o st, then , ex clus ion w as h arm less erro r. F i nall y , K enn edyargues t hat the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in orderi ng res ci ssi on becau se nei t herpar t yhad expl i ci t l yr eques t ed thatr emedy . O m ni ’ s compl ai nt , how ever , i nvoked t he C our t ’ s equi t abl e j ur i s di ct i on t hr ough i t s gener al r eques tfor“otherr el i ef. ” U nder t hes e ci r cumst ance s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on t o i m pos e r es ci s s i on w her e, as her e, “both par t i es w er e enga gi ng i n s ubt er fuge a nd chi cane r y ” and e ach w as

“ tr y in g to s c a m th e o th e r.” A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.