2005 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
9-1-2005 

# Ank e rs tje rne v . S chlumb e rge r Lt d
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-2379

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Anke r s tj e r ne v

. S chlumbe rg e r Lt d " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 575. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/575- 1- NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 04- 2379

WI L L I AM D. ANKE RS T J E RN E

A ppel l ant
v. S CHLUM BER GER, LT D. ; S CHLUM BER GER OM NES , I NC.

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. N o. 03- cv- 03607) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a ryA . M c L a u g h lin
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL
. A
. R
. 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 21, 2005 B efore: R O T H , F U E N T E S , and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: Sept ember 1, 2005)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT“ O u r sta n d a rd o f re v iew a p p lica b le to a n o rd e r g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t is 1 pl enary . ” M or t on I nt ’ l , I nc. v. A
. E
. St al ey M fg. C o. , 343 F. 3d 669, 679 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng C ur l eyv. K l em, 298 F. 3d 271, 276- 77 ( 3d C i r . 2002) )
. “W e appl y t he s ame t es templ oy ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tunderFeder al R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 56( c)
. ” M or t on I nt ’ l , 343 F. 3d a t 6 7 9 (c itatio n o m itt e d ). “ A c c o rd in g ly , th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof [Schl um ber ger ] w as pr operonl yi f i tappea r s t hat ‘ t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac tand t hat [S ch lum b erger ] i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ’ ” I d. at

- 2- FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge.

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antW i l l i am D
. A nker s t j erne appe al s fr om t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s gr ant of s um m ar yj udgm enti n favorof t he D efe ndant s S chl um ber gerL t d. and Schl um ber ger O m nes , I nc. ( col l ect i vel y , “Schl um ber ger ”)
. A nker s t j erne br oughtcl ai m s of br eac h of
co n tr ac t, v iolati o n o f P en n sy lvan ia’s W ag e P ay m en t and C o ll ec ti o n A ct, p ro m is s o ry esto p p el, an d u n

just e n ri ch m en t ag ains t S ch lum b erg er o n ac co u n t o f S ch lum b erg er’s fa il u re t o payhi m bonus es on cont r act s he hel ped t he companyobt ai n. I n par t i cul ar , A nker s t j er ne
c o n t e n d s t h a th e i s o wed b o n u s e s i n a n a mou n t g r e a t e r t h a n $ 2 mi l l i o n u n d e r t h e 2 0 0 1 “ SLB C orpor at e I ncent i ve Pl an forA R C T r ans i t i oned Em pl oy ees ” ( “Tra ns i t i on Pl an”) forw or k he p erf o rm ed o n the D all as C o u n ty , L ee C o u n ty , an d o ther p rojec ts i n 2 0 0 2
. M o reo v er, A nker s t j er ne cont ends t hatdur i ng 2002, atl eas tone Schl um ber germ anage rm ade

r epr es ent at i ons t o hi m t hathe w oul d be compens at ed undert he Tra ns i t i on Pl an. W e af fi r m s ubs t ant i al l yfort he r eas ons expr es s ed i n t he t hor ough and pe rs uas i ve
o p in io n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. W e a d d th e f o llo w in g to u n d e rsc o re o u r o w n a g re e m e n t w ith t hatdeci s i on. 1679- 80 ( ci t i ng Fed. R
. C i v. P. 56( c) )
. “I n eval uat i ng t he evi dence , w e t ake the fa ct s i n t he

lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rty, [ A n k e rstje rn e ], an d d ra w a ll rea so n a b le i nfer ence s i n [hi s ] favor
. ” I d. at 680 ( ci t at i on and quot at i on om i t t ed)
. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291.

- 3- Fi r s t , w e r ej ectA nker s t j er ne’ s cont ent i on tha tt he D i s t r i ctC our ter r ed i n gr ant i ng
s um m ar yj udgm entt o t he D efe ndant s on hi s br eac h of contr actcl ai m . W e m us tbegi n our
an aly sis w ith the lan g u ag e o f th e T ran sit ion P lan, w h o se t erm s, if they are u n am b igu o u s, are t o be cons t rued by t he cour t . R am C ons t r . C o. , I nc. v. A m . St at es I ns . C o. , 749 F. 2d 1049, 1052 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( “W hen t he agr eement i s i n w r i t i ng, ambi guous t er m s ar e i nt erpr et ed by the ju ry , u n am b igu o u s o n es by the co u rt . ”). D eterm ining w h ethe r t h e term s o f a co n tr ac t are ambi guous i s a ques t i on of l aw . See St
. Paul Fi r e & M arine Ins. C o . v. L ew i s , 935 F. 2d 1 4 2 8 , 1 4 3 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). H e re , th e lan g u a g e o f th e T ra n sitio n P lan is un a m b ig u o u s a s to i t s dur at i on: i tcl ear l ys t at es t hatt h e “P lan P eriod ” w as fr om “J an. 01, 2001 t hru D ec. 31, 2 0 0 1 ” ; itd e tails s p e c if

ic p e rf o rm a n c e o b

jec tiv e s th a t ar e tied to p a rtic u la r tim e p e rio d s in 2 0 0 1 ; and itinclu d ed a c ap it ali ze d ref ere n ce to “T H E Y E A R 2 0 0 1 , ” a b o v e P lai n ti ff ’s
s i gnatur e l i ne. A ccor di ngl y , byt he pl ai n l anguage of t he agr eement , the T ran si t i on Pl an, underw hi ch A nker s t

j er ne see ks compensa t i on, appl i ed onl yt o w or k per for m ed i n 2001, not 2002. See W heel erv. G r aco Tr ucki ng C orp. , 985 F. 2d 108, 114 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( hol di ng t hat
su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s a p p ro p ria te w h e re p lain tiff ’s c laim w a s f o re c lo se d b yth e p lain l anguage of t he cont r act ) ; D i J os eph v. M etr o. L i fe I ns . C o. , N o. 94- 3445, 1995 W L 89020, at *4 (E
. D
. P a. M ar. 1 , 1 9 9 5 ) (g ran ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t o n b rea ch o f co n tr ac t cl aim w h ereA nker s t j er ne i ni t i al l y r el i ed on K i r k i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n s uppor tof hi s br eac h of 2 con t ractcl ai m . N ow , on app eal , w e no t e t hat i t i s A nk ers t j erne w ho i s seeki ng t o d i st i ng uis h K irk , e v e n th o u g h h e re lied o n it b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt. In a n y e v e n t, w e se e n o e rro r in

- 4- c la im o f b o n u s e s f

o re c lo s e d b yp la in la n g u a g e o f c o n tr a c t)
. D e sp ite th e p lain lan g u a g e o f th e T ra n sitio n P lan , A n k e rstje rn e re lies o n e x trin sic evi dence t o pr ove t he exi s t ence of an i m pl i ed- i n- fac tcont r actbet w een Schl um ber gerand hi m s el f f

r o m a p p r o x i ma t e l y J a n u a r y 2 0 0 2 t o Oct o b e r 2 0 0 2 u n d e r t h e t e r ms o f t h e 2001 T r ans i t i on Pl an. For i ns t ance , A nker s t j erne r el i es on t he fac t t hat no r epl ace m entbonus pl an for2002 w as gi ven t o hi m unt i l atl eas tO ct ober2002, and t hat ac co rdin g lyt he Tra ns i t i on P lan “ ro lled o v e r” to c o v e r th e p e rio d b e tw e e n Ja n u a rya n d O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 . In m a k in g th is
a rg u m e n t, A n k e rstje rn e a p p e a rs to re lyo n th e ru le th a t “ w h e re a p e rso n is hire d f o r a d e f in ite t er m atan agr eed r at e and c ont i nues in the empl oy m entaft ert he t er m w i t houtanynew
a g re e m e n t, th e p re su m p tio n is th a t th e sa m e ra te is to b e c o n tin u e d .” K irk v . T h e Je rro ld C orp. , 33 2 F. S up p. 24 7, 24 9 ( E
. D
. P a. 19 71 ). H ow ever, as K i rk no t ed, t his rule is o n ly appl i cabl e w her e t he t er m of empl oy m enti s a fi xed t er m , and the par t i es t o t he empl oy m ent
r el at i ons hi p have not , att he t i m e of for m at i on, pr ovi ded fora paym entcont i ngencybey ond t he t er m fi xed byt he contr act . I d. H er e, as t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, Schl um ber gerand A n k e rstje rn e e n v is io n e d th e ir e m p lo y m e n t re latio n sh ip to b e o p e n -e n d e d , ex ten d in g w e llbey ond t he term ination of t he Tra ns i t i on Pl an. A ccor di ngl y , t he fa ctt hatno new bonus compensa t i on pl an w as pr ovi ded t o A nker s t j erne unt i l O ct ober2002 does notm ean thatan i mp l i e d c o n t r a c tu n d e rt h e t e r ms o f t h e 2 0 0 1 Tr a n s i t i o n P l a n wa s c r e a t e d i n t h e i n t e r i m. 2t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r el i ance on K i r k as i t expr es s es t he rul e thati s t o be appl i ed i n t hi s cas e.

M or eover , w e ar e unper s uaded byt he ot hercas es t hatA nker s t j erne r el i es on , i ncl udi ng B or gW ar nerC orp. , I nger s ol l K al amazoo D i v. v. O s t er t ag, 118 N
. W
. 2d 900 ( W i s . 1963) , as none of t hes e ca s es i nvol ved t he s i tuat i on pr es enther e, w her e an e m pl oy ee w as h ir ed as par tof an open- ended e m pl oy m ent r el at i ons hi p but offe r ed a t r ans i t i on bonus pl an for a s ub- per i od of t hatr el at i ons hi p. A nker s t j er ne cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti gnor ed hi s al t ernat i ve ar gum entt hat 3 S c h lu m b e rg e r c o u ld n o t re tro a c tiv e ly a p p ly th e 2 0 0 2 b o n u s p lan to w o rk p e rf o rm e d p rio r to O ctob er 2002. T hi s i s s i m pl ynott he ca s e as t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatt he D i s t r i ctC ourt cons i der ed a n d rejected A nker s t j er ne’ s ar gum ent . See A pp. at11 n. 8 ( ci t i ng Skodni ck v. R and M cN al l y& C o. , N o. 87- 0077, 1987 W L 28091 ( E
. D
. Pa. D ec. 14, 1987) )
. I n any event , A nker s t

j er ne’ s r el i ance on Skodni ck, and s i m i l arcas es , fort he pr opos i t i on t hat Schl um ber ger w as pr ohi bi t ed fr om r etr oact i vel y appl y i ng t he 2002 bonus pl an pr es um es t hat t he 2001 Tra ns i t i on Pl an w as i n eff ectfr om J anuaryt o O ct ober 2002. A s w e have al r eady di s cus s ed, t he r ecor d s i m pl ydoes nots uppor tt hi s pr es um pt i on.

- 5- Si m i l arl y , A nker s t

j er ne r el i es on al l eged s t at ement s m ade byhi s s uper vi s or , J ohn A nder s on, t hatt he Tra ns i t i on Pl an w oul d coverw or k per for m ed i n 2002 unt i l a new pl an w as p u t in p lac e . In p a rticu lar , th e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t A n k e rstje rn e sta ted in a d e p o sitio n th a t:

“ I a m t e l l i n g y o u t h a t M r . An d e r s o n t o l d me t h a t h e a s s u me d t h a t u n t i l t h e [ n e w]
c o m p e n s a tio n p l a n w a s p u t in to p la c e , th a t th e c o m p e n s a tio n p la n th a t is in p la c e s to o d .” A p p . at 55 2 (em p h asis ad d ed ). W e a g ree w ith the D istric t C o u rt th at A n d erso n ’s “as s um pt i on” r egar di ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he T r ans i t i on Pl an t o w or k per for m ed i n 2002 i s t oo i nd efi nit e and vag ue t o const i tute suffici ent evidence overcom i n g th e e x press d u ra tio n a l li m its c o n tain e d in th e p lain lan g u a g e o f th e c o n tra c t. 3 Second, w e r ej ectA nker s t j er ne’ s ar gum en t tha tt he D i s t r i ctC our ter r ed i n gr ant i ng
su m m a ryju d g m e n t to S c h lu m b e rg e r on h is pr o m iss o ry e sto p p e l c laim
. U n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia l aw , a cour tm ayenfor ce a “pr om i s e thati s uns uppor t ed bycons i der at i on w here ( 1) t he- 6-

pr om i s or m akes a pr om i s e t hat he r eas onabl y expec t s t o i nduce a ct i on orforbear ance byt he pr om i s ee, ( 2) t he pr om i s e does i nduce a ct i on or f o rbe arance byt he pr om i s ee, ( 3) and injusti ce ca n o n lyb e a v o ided b yen fo rcing the p rom ise. ” C arlson v . A rno t- O g d en M em ’l H os p. , 918 F. 2d 411, 416 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( ci t i ng C ar dm or e v. U ni v. of Pi t t s bur gh, 384 A
. 2d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 3 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 19 7 8 )). H o w e v e r, a b ro a d a n d v a g u e im p li e d p ro m ise is i ns uffi ci entt o s at i s fyt he fi r s tel ement . See C & K Pet r ol eum Pr ods
. , I nc. v. E qui bank, 839 F. 2d 188, 192 ( 3d C i r . 1988)
. H er e, t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat R us t yPet r ee, a s eni orm anage r atSchl um ber ger , al l egedl y t ol d A nker s t j erne that“i tw as r i di cul ous ” thatA nker s t j erne had

n o t b e e n c o m p e n sa ted f o r th e p rojec ts h e h a d w o rk e d o n , an d th a t h e (P e tre e ) “ w o u ld g e t it tak e n c a re of . .
. per t he ter m s of [A nk ers t j erne’ s] com pen sat i on plan. ” H ow ever, t his
s t at ement byPet r ee, as w el l as ot her s he i s al l eged t o have m ade, ar e s i m pl y t oo vague a nd i ndefi ni t e t o cons t i tut e a “ pr om i s e” f orpurpos es of pr om i s s or yes t op pel
. A s t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt n o ted , the a lleg e d sta tem e n ts b yP e tre e d o n o t sp e c if y “ h o w m u c h th e p lain tiff w o u ld be pai d, by w hom he w oul d be pai d, how paym entw as t o be ca l cul at ed, orw hen t he pl ai nt i ff

w oul d be pai d. ” A pp. at15. For t hes e r eas ons , A nker s t j erne’ s r el i ance on L i nkerv. K och I nves t m ent s , I nc. , 62 F. Supp. 2d 611 ( D
. C onn. 1999) , i s m i s pl ace d, as t he pr om i s e t o pay bonus es i n L i nkerw as far m or e defi ni t e and adequa t el ys uppor t ed byevi dence i n t he r ecor d,

w hi ch i s nott he ca s e her e. See i d. at613- 14 ( not i ng t hat evi dence i ncl uded pr om i s es byt he empl oy ert han “bonus es w oul d be p aid to the t r adi ng gr oup bas ed on 15- 20% of t r adi ng pr ofi t s earned fr om t he t r adi ng oper at i ons ” as w el l as an aff i davi t t hat t he bonus s cheme w asA nker s t j er ne’ s r el i ance on B oot el v. V er i zon D i r ect or i es C orp. , N o. 03- 1997, 2004 4 W L 1 5 3 5 7 9 8 (E .D . P a . Ju n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 ), is m isp lac e d , as th e re w a s a d isp u te in B o o tel a s to w het hert he pl ai nt i ff’ s s ol i ci t at i on eff or t s w er e cons i s t entw i t h her j ob dut i es and herbonus s cheme. I d. at4- 6. I n cont r as t , her e t her e i s no di s put e t hatA nker s t j erne ’s e ff

o rt s o n t he D all as a n d L ee C o u n ty p rojec ts w ere en co m p asse d w ith in his job d u ti es. S ee A p p ell an t’ s B r. at10- 11.

- 7- co n sist en t w ith ind u strystan d ard s). E ven as s um i ng, how ever , t hatt he pr om i s e byPet r ee w as defi ni t e enough, w e not e t hat A n k e rstje rn e h a s n o t p o in ted to e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd e sta b lish in g th a t h e d e trim e n tally rel i ed o n P et ree’ s prom i se. T o succe ed o n a p rom i ssor yest op pel cl ai m , t he p l ai nti ff m ust
es t abl i s h t hat he t ook act i on t hat“amount ed t o a s ubs t ant i al change of pos i t i on. ” K aufman

v. M el l on N at ’ l B ank and Tr us tC o. , 366 F. 2d 326, 332 ( 3d C i r . 1996)
. H ow ever , t her e i s no
r ecor d evi dence i ndi cat i ng, for i ns t ance , t hat by w or ki ng on t he L ee Count ypr oj ecti n 2002, he had t o for ego w or ki ng on s om e ot herpr oj ectt hatcoul d have y i el ded a large r b o nus , or th a t h e w a s in a p o sitio n to re f u se to w o rk o n th e p rojec ts in q u e stio n . A n k e rstje rn e o n ly

m akes t he conc l us or yas s er t i on t hathe w oul d not have w or ked on t he Lee C ount ypr oj ectbut for Pe t r e e ’ s p r o mi s e , s e e App e l l a n t ’ s Br
. a t 5 0 , e v e n t h o u g h h e h i ms e l f s t a t e d t h a t he w as “as s i gned” t o w or k on t hatpr oj ect . See A pp. at43. I n t hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e fa i l t o s ee how A nker s t

j er ne detr i m ent al l yr el i ed on Pet r ee’ s pr om i s e. 4 F in a lly , w e f

in d n o e rro r in th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to Schl um ber geron t he unj us tenr i chment cl ai m . A cl ai m of unj us tenr i chment r equi r es t he pl ai nt i ff t o “s how t hatt he par t yagai ns t w hom r ecove r yi s s oughtei t herw r ongful l ys ecur ed- 8-

or pas s i vel y r ece i ved a benef i t t hat w oul d be uncons ci onabl e for t he par t y t o r et ai n w i t hout compensa t i ng t he pr ovi der
. ” H er s heyFoods Corp. v. R al ph C hapek, I nc. , 828 F. 2d 989, 999 ( 3d C i r . 1 987) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. A nker s t j erne r ei t er at es hi s ar gum entt hatt he 2001 T ra n sitio n P lan c o v e re d th e w o rk h e p e rf o rm e d f ro m Ja n u a ry to O c to b e r 20 0 2 , a n d th a t itis “uncons ci onabl e” thatSchl um ber gerpr om i s ed t o pay hi m pert he Tra ns i t i on Pl an, i nduced him to w or k on t he pr oj ect s i n ques t i on as a r es ul t , and t hen fa i l ed t o compensa t e hi m as p rom ised
. S ee A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 54
. H o w ev er, w e a lr e a d yh av e re jected A n k erstj ern e’s cont ent i on t hatt he Tra ns i t i on Pl an “r ol l ed- over ” i nt o 2002, as t he plain language of t he cont r acts t at es t hati ti s l i m i t ed t o w o rk p erf o r m ed i n 2001. M or eover , w e not e t hat A n k erstj ern e w as stil l paid h is ba se sa lary o f $9 7 , 9 0 0 , an d a bo n u s o f $ 6 , 8 5 3 , fo r t h e w o rk t h a t h e p e r f

o r me d i n 2 0 0 2 , c o mpe n s a t i o n whi c h Ank e r s t j e r n e d o e s n o t c o nt end w as i ncons i s t entw i th t he 2002 bonus pl an. A s the D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed: “T he pl ai nt i ff ha s not
s h o w n th a t h e p ro v id e d th e d e f e n d a n ts w ith a n y th in g m o re th a n th e w o rk h e w a s h ir e d to d o .” A pp. at17; s ee a l s o H erbs tv. G en. A cci dent I ns . C o. , N o. 97- 8085, 1999 W L 820194, at*9 ( E
. D
. Pa. Sept
. 3 0 , 1999) ( deny i ng cl ai m forunj us tenr i chment w her e “pl ai nt i ff ha s not
s how n t hathe di d anyt hi ng m or e t han w or k t o t he best of hi s abi l i t i es fordefe ndantas he w as eng aged t o d o”). A ccordi ng l y , S chlum berger i s enti t l ed t o s um m aryj ud gm ent on t he u njust
e n r i c h me n tc l a i m. W e have cons i der ed al l of t he ar gum ent s advanc ed byt he par t i es and conc l ude t hat no fur t herdi s cus s i on i s nece s s ar y . A ccor di ngl y , t he j udgm entof t he D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be- 9-

aff i r m ed.