H on. Tany a W alt on Prattofthe Southern Dist ri ctofIndiana,  s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 3361 C H I CA GO U NI T ED I NDUSTRIE S, L TD ., e tal ., P laint if fs -App el lants , v. C ITY OF C HI CAGO, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 05 C5011

—Rob ert M. Dow, Jr. , Judge
.
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 29, 2011

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 24, 2012

Befo re P O SNER and K ANN E , C ircu it Judges , a nd P RAT T, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Thi s s uit , now i n i ts seve nth yea r, pi ts Ch i cago U ni ted I nd ustr i es ( w hi ch the p ar ties call CU I ) and i ts pri nci pal s ( Georg e Loe ra and N i ck M ass ar el l a) ag ai nst the Ci ty ofChica go and tw o ofi ts2 N o. 10

- 3361

em plo ye es ( M ar y Dem psey and Louis Langone, wh om we n e e d notdi s c u s s s e p a r a t e l y fr o m th e C i t y )

. C UI charg es the C ity with a num bero fco nsti tuti onalvi ol ati ons and al so, by i nvoking the sup ple m entalj uri sdic

ti on of the dist ri ct cour t, w i th bre aches of contrac t u n d er I llin oi s l aw . A fteran i nter l ocuto ryappeal to thi s co urt, dec ided i n Chic ago U ni t e d Indu s t r i e s , Lt d. v. Ci ty of Chic ago , 44 5 F.3d 9 40 (7th Cir

. 20 06) , and a num bero f am en dme nt s t o the c o mpl a i nt, a nd o the r p r e l i mi na r i e s, the c ase fi nal l y r eached a p oi nt atwh i ch the defe nd ants c o ul d mo v e f o r s ummar y j ud g men t, wh i c h wa s gr ante d, p re c ip ita tin g t h is a p p ea l. CU Ise l l s a var i etyo fpro du cts, and h as ann ual sa l es th atv ar y b etwee n abo ut$ 10 mil l i o n a nd $ 20 mil l i o n. I t purpor ts to be a w h ole sal er, tho ugh ther e a re ( orat l eas t were) s uspici ons that i t’ s r eal l y a br oke r

— an i nt erm edi ar y between the w hol esa l er s and the City ofChica go o r other pur ch as er s f r o m who l es al er s. “ ‘ Br o k er ’ mean s a per son orenti ty that fill s o rder s bypurchasi ng o r re cei vi ng suppli es f ro m a thi rd party s up pli err atherthan out ofi ts ow n e x i sti ng i nventor y a nd pro vi des no substa nti alse rv i ce o therthan acti ng as a con d u i t be tw een hi s o r he r s uppl i era nd hi s o r he r c us to m er . ” Chi

. M unicip al Cod e § 2-92-420(c). Th e Ci t y h a d c e r t i fi e d C UI as an M BE

— a m i nor i tyow n e d bu siness ente rp rise; Loe ra, th e 51 p ercen t ow ne r, is H isp an ic. M in or ity -ow n ed an d w om en -ow n ed bu sin e s s e n t e r p r i s e s r e c e i v e f a v o r e d t r e a t me n t b y t he Ci ty ; f o r e xa m pl e, the y a l o ne c an b i d o n c er ta i n c o ntr ac ts w ith th e C ity ca lled “t ar ge t m ar ke t” co n tr ac ts . C h i.N o. 10

- 3361 3 M unici pal Code §§ 2- 92- 460( a), ( d); Ci ty ofChica go Departm ent o fPro curem ent S er vices, “YourBusi ness I s C e r t i f i e d

— N o w Wh a t ? ” p . 5 , ww w . ci ty o f ch i ca g o . o r g / co n t e n t/ d a m/ c i t y / dept s/ dps/ Out r ea ch / YourBusine ssI sCert i fi edN owW hat.pdf ( vi si ted Dec. 7, 20 11 )

. The Ci tyi s vi r tu al l y CUI’ s o nl y c us to m er . But ea rly in 2 00 5 t h e C ity be ga n to s u s p ec t t h at C U I rea lly was a b r o k err athe r tha n a who l es al er, which ift r ue wo ul d ma k e i ti nel i gib l e t o b i d f o r c o nt r a c t s a s a n M BE bec au se as a b r o ker i t w ou ld be h elping w holesalers w ho a re notM BE s ci rcum vent the Ci ty’ s affi rm ati veacti on pol i cy. Offi ce o fthe I nspectorGenera l, Ci ty of Chi c a g o , “ R e v i e w o f th e Mi no r i ty a nd W o m en O w n ed B u si ness En ter pri se Pro gr am ” 2

- 9, 31

- 32 ( M ay 2010 ) , ww w . chi c a g o ins pe c t o r g e ne ra l

. or g/w p-co ntent/ up l o a d s / 2 0 1 1 / 0 3 / R e p o r t

_ MWB E

- P r o g r a mRe v i e w. pd f ( vi si ted Dec. 20 , 20 11)

. The pol i cy go al is t o prom ote m in or ity -ow n ed w h ole sa ler s r at h er th an to en ab le m i no r i tyb r o k er s to s cr ape a br o k er ’ s pr emi um o ffc o ntr acts o fnon -M BE wh ol esa l er s. S ee RJB Pro pe r t i e s , Inc . v. Boardof Educ at i on , 4 6 8 F
. 3 d 1 0 0 5 , 1 0 0 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )

. C UI h a d atth e t i me o n l y s i x e mp l o y e e s , a n d th o u g h i tc l a i ms to have had a warehouse , wh i ch a broke r w oul d not have had, i t i s har d to see how i t co u ld o p er ate a w ar eho us e w ith s o few e m pl o y ee s, g i ve n the he te r o g en eo us m i xture ofpro d u c ts

— si g ns , s ta i nl es s st ee l, he l i x l i g ht pol es, ai r condi ti oner s, st eelcag es, s ew er br i cks, cat ch basi n f ra m es, m anhol e co ver s, de- i ci ng chem i cal s, dog food, l aser sp eed de tec t o r s , and m ore

— that i t s up pli es to the Ci ty. M aybe i t has a sm al l w ar eh ouse, fro m wh i ch i t di str ibutes som e o fthe products that i t sells t he Ci ty, w hi l e a cti ng as a bro kerf orm osto fi ts contr acts
.4 N o. 10

- 3361 Brok er s no t o nl y m ay not bi d fo r w hol esa l e co ntra cts, but al so m ay not, by se rv i ng as subco ntra cto rs to wh ol esal er s, be cer ti fi ed as M BE s. Chica go M unici pal Code §§ 2- 92- 420( c) , - 480, - 540( a)

. A nd so the Cit y n oti fi ed CU Ithat it w as co n sid er in g re vo kin g its ce rt ifica tio n, t h o u gh it ne ve r c o m pl et ed i ts i nv es ti g at i o n a nd the com pan y re tai ns the cer ti fi cati on t o thi s day. The City a l so bel i eve d that the co m pany had shor ted i t on a shi pm ent of al um i num si gn bl anks, and on that g r o und n o ti fi ed the c o m pan y tha t i t was c o ns i der i ng d ebarring i t from d ealing w ith th e C ity a lt o geth er, whe the r o r n o ti tr e mai ne d a n M BE. Bo thno ti fi ca ti o ns

— o fpo ss ibl e dec er ti fi ca ti o n a nd p oss ibl e deb ar m en t

— we r e i s s ue d in M a r c h 2 0 0 5 , a nd f or the ne xt five m onths the Ci ty drast i cal l y c urta i l ed i ts pur ch as es fr o m CUI

. From a n a ve r ag e o f$ 1 m i l l i o n a m o nth the y fel l to ab o ut$ 19 0, 00 0 a m o nth, a nd dur i ng th is period th e com p an y sus t a in e d a net loss of m ore than $600, 000, wh i ch i s the pri nci pali tem o fdam age s that i t s eek s. A t t h e e n d of th e fiv e-m on th p er iod th e C ity form ally debarr ed the com pany fro m sell i ng to the Cityf orthr ee ye ar s. T h e c om p an y s u ed im m ed iat el y , an d p ro m p tly so ug hta nd o btaine d a t empor ar y r es tr ai ni ngo r dera nd as a r es ul t th e deb ar m en t was i n effec t f o r o nl y e i g ht days. T h e Cityso on abandoned i ts att em pt to debar the c om pany, and i n the deci si on ci ted ea rl i erwe dism issed the d efend an ts’ app eal fr o m t h e d istri ct cou rt’s o r d e r ( wh i c h h a d r i p e n e d i n t o a p r e l i mi n a r y i nj u n c ti o n, a n d th u s wa s a p p e a l a b l e ) a s mo o t
. F r o m th a t po i nt t heN o. 10

- 3361 5

case pro ceeded as a sui t f ordam age s f orl os ses sust ai ned by CU Iduri ng the fi ve m onths ofcurt ai l ed purch ases and the e i ght day s o factual debar m ent. We l e a d o ff wi th L o e r a ’ s a n d Ma s s a r e l l a ’ s c l a i ms. We ca n b e b r i e f b e c a u s e th e y a r e f r i v o l o u s . ( Ac t u a l l y t he en ti r e ca se i s pr et ty f r i vo l o us . ) The two pr i nc i pal s argue th at th e e igh t-d ay d eb ar m en t d ep r i v e d th em of th eir occupati onall iber ty

— thei r ri ght to pu rs ue their cho sen occupati on

— i n v iol ati on o fthe du e pr oce ss cl ause of th e F ou rt ee n th A m en d m en t. Se e, e.g ., Boardof Rege nt s v. R oth , 408 U .S. 56 4, 5 73 -74 (19 72 ); Tow ns e nd v. Val l as , 25 6 F .3d 66 1, 66 9-7 2 (7 th C ir. 20 01 ) ; C o la iz z i v. Wa lk er, 81 2 F .2d 30 4, 30 7 (7 th C ir. 19 87 ); Dona to v. Pl ai n vi e wO ld Bethpage Central School D is t. , 96 F. 3d 623, 630 -33 ( 2d Cir

. 19 96)

. Even i f, as th e D
. C. Cir cui t be l i eve s, bar ri ng a g o ve r nm en t co nt r ac to r from do i ngb us i ne ss wi ththe g o ver nm en t, wi ththe e ff ec t o fde st r o y i ngthe c o ntr acto r’ s busi ness because he ne i th erhas nor can obt ai n any othe r custo m er, would be a depri vati on o f occupati onall iber ty ( that i s, ev en i fa cor pora ti on ca n h av e a p ro fes sio n, voc at ion , or ca llin g), Tri f ax Corp. v. D is tr ictof Colum bia , 314 F.3d 6 4 1 , 643-45 (D.C

. Cir. 2003); O l d D o m inio n D a iry P rod uc ts, Inc. v. Secreta ry o f D efense , 631 F. 2d 953, 96 1- 62 ( D.C. Ci r. 19 80), a n e ight- day bar th at does not destr oy the c ontr acto r’ s busi ness orev en p erm an en tly w eaken i t, bu t cau ses m ere ly a tem p orary l oss , i s no t a depri vati on o fo ccupati onallib erty. “A l iber ty i nter esti s no t i m pli cate d w h ere the char ges m er el y r es u l t i n r e d u ce d e co no m i c r et ur ns a nd dim i ni shed pres ti ge, but not perm anent excl usi on fro m o r6 N o. 10

- 3361 prot ra cted i nter rupti on o fem plo ym ent. ” M uns on v. Friske, 754 F.2d 683 , 693 (7th C ir. 1985). I f a law yer’s p rincipa l cli en t is a pu bli c agen cy, w hich gets an gry wi thhi m a nd a s a r es ul t he l o se s m o ne y f o r fi ve s tr ai g ht m on th s b efo re th e a ge n c y m ak es u p w i t h h im , th at is n o ta d e f a c t o r e v o c a t i o n o fh i s l i c e n s e t o p r a c t i c e l a w. Anyway i t i sn ’ t CU Itha t’ s br i ng i ngthis c l ai m , b ut Lo er a an d M assar el l a, a nd the i r e m pl o y m en t bythe com pany w as never i nter rupted. “One si m plyca n n ot have been denie d his l iber ty to pu rsue a parti cul aro ccupati on wh en he adm i tte dly co nti nues to hol d a j ob

— th e sam e j ob

— i n that ver y o ccupati on. ” A bcari an v. M cD ona ld, 617 F.3d 931, 941-42 (7th Cir. 2010). So m u ch f or Loera and M assa rell a. T he com p an y’s pri nci pal ar gum ent i s that the City depri ved i t o f its pr o per tywi th ou t due pr o ce ss o fl aw, the pr o per tyc o nsisting of its cert ification as a m inority busin ess en terpri se. The Ci ty didn’tactual l y dece rt i fy the co m pany, bu t the argum en t is th at by d rastically red uc ing its pu rc h as es fr om i t f orfi ve m onths the Ci ty eff ecti vel y dec er tifie d it for t h a t p e riod , sin c e d u rin g t h at tim e it had a net l oss . The City a rg u es that cer ti fi cati on a s a m i nor i ty bus i ne ss e nt er prise is no t pr o per tywi th i n the mean i ng ofthe w or d i n the du e pr oce ss cl ause because i t i s t oo co ntingent: i t i s m er el y a n o ppo r tu ni tyt o s el l t o the Cityr atherthan a rig h t to do s o. On thi s g ro und i t di sti ngui shes the l i quor l i cense that w e hel d to be pr oper ty i n R eed v. Vi l l ageof

Sh or e wood, 704 F.2d 943 ( 7th Cir. 19 83 ). B u t a ll a liqu o r l i c e n s e is is a rig h t t o s ell liq u or ; i t i s no t a guar antee thata n yone w i l l buy. W hat m ake sN o. 10

- 3361 7 i t pr oper ty i s that i t i s a pote nti al l y v alu ab l e a sse t t o w hi ch the h old erhas a l ega l enti tl em ent. Bo ard of Regents v. R oth , sup ra , 40 8 U .S

. at57 7. A n M BE cer ti fi cati on i s l i k ewi se a po te nt i al l y v al uabl e as se t to w hich the hol der has a l ega l enti tl em ent b ecause i t ca n be revok ed o nl y f o r ca us e , an d o n tha tg r o un d Baja Cont r ac t ors , Inc . v. City of Chi cago , 8 3 0 F. 2 d 6 6 7, 6 7 6

- 7 7( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 7 ) , h o l ds th ati t ca n b e pr o per tywi th i n the m ean i ngo fthe due proce ss cl ause. Fo r “w here st ate l aw gi ves pe op le a benefit and cre ate s a sy ste m o fnondi scr eti onar y r ule s g o ve r ni ngr ev o ca ti o n or r en ewa l o ftha t be ne fi t, the re c ip ien ts h av e a se c u re an d d u ra b le p ro p er ty ri g h t, a l egi ti m ate cl ai m o fenti tl em ent. ” C ornel ius v. LaC roix, 83 8 F.2d 2 07 , 2 10- 11 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) ; se e a l so Ree d v

. Vi l l age of Sh or e wood, sup ra , 70 4 F
. 2d at 94 8 (“proper ty i s what i s s ec ur e l y a nd du r a b l y y o ur s un de r s t a t e . . . l a w, as d ist in c t fro m w h at you h old su b j ec t t o s o m an y c on d iti ons a s to m ake yo ur i nter estm eag er, tr ansi tor y, o r un certain ”). A l though CU I ’ s cer ti fi cati on a s a n M BE was never re vo ke d , th er e w ou ld be d e fa c to rev oc at ion , w h ich is tr eat ed the sam e under the due pro cess cl au se , ifthe City “destr oye d t h e [ce rt i fi cati on’ s] val ue. ” Id. at94 9; se e a l so Me d C o rp . , In c . v. Ci tyo f L i ma , 29 6 F
. 3d 404, 41 1- 13 ( 6th C ir. 20 02 ); We s t b or ough M al l, In c. v. Ci ty of CapeGi r ar de au , 79 4 F .2d 33 0, 33 6

- 3 7 ( 8 t h C ir. 19 86 ); cf. Parre t tv. Ci ty of C onners vill e, 7 37F
. 2d 69 0, 6 93

- 95 ( 7th Ci r . 1 984 ) ( co nstr ucti ve disc harg e o fa publi c em plo yee i n vi ol ati on o f the due pro cess cl ause)

. But d im inuti on i s no t dest ructio n, an d d im in u tio n is a l l t h e c om p an y h as sh ow n . I t conti nued to bi d on Ci ty contr acts , and w on s om e,8 N o. 10

- 3361 whi l e co nt i nui ngt o func tion as a n MB E o n i ts e xi st i ng contr acts w i th the Ci ty. Throughout the fi ve- m onth peri od i n question it so l d $939, 000 w or th o fgo ods t o the City, som e und er new contr acts , som e u nd er e x i s t i n go n e s . T r u e , i th a d n o wh e r e n e a r th e s a me su cc es s th at i t ha d ha d be f o r e an d woul d ha ve aga i n, an d we c ana ss um e th atthe Ci ty ’ s ho st i l i tywas the r ea so n i t lost m o ne y dur i ngthe fi ve - m o nth pe r i o d. But tem pora ryl oss es ar e co m m on in busi ne ss , and do not equa te t o de st r uct i o n. Furtherm or e, to c urta i l l iber ty i n conf or m i ty w i th l aw i s no t a den ial of d ue pr o ce ss . Othe r wi se o ur j ai l s an d pri sons w oul d be em p ty. CU Ipre sente d no ev i dence th at th e C ity vi olated any term s of th e com p an y ’s MB E c e r t i fi c a t i o n i n c u r t a i l i n gp u r c h a s e s fr o m th e c o mpany w hi l e pursui ng eff or ts to debar ordecer ti fy i t. The eve ntual aba nd onm ent o ftho se eff or ts doesn’ t s how that the Ci ty’ s s uspici ons that the c om p an y w as a br oke r an d h ad cheate d i t o n si gn bl anks and ther ef or e was an unrel i abl e co ntra ctualpartner w er e g rou n d l ess

— that i t l acke d a s i t were probabl e ca use t o curta i l i ts bus i ne ss wi ththe c om pan y . Norha s th e co m pan y m ade any showing that the Ci ty w as f orbi dd en by st atute oro rdi nance o r re gul ati on or th e term s o fi ts contr acts orthe l anguage o fthe com pany’s M BE cer tifica ti on t o c u rt ail its d e a l in gs w ith a su p p lier t h at it h ad p ro b ab le c au se to be liev e w as vio lat i n g t h e law , w h ile it in ve st igated

. So f ar as ap p ears, the C ity’s p rovisi ona l selfhel p re m edy w as as proper as detai ni ng an arrest ed perso n to aw ai t a pre l i m i naryhear i ng be f or e a m agi str ate
.N o. 10

- 3361 9 The c o m pan y make s th e fur th erco ns ti tu ti o na l a r g um en t t h at th e C ity ret alia te d a g a i n st it for it s filin g t h is l aws ui t byc ont inu in gt o r ej ec t i ts b i ds an d b y i gno r i ng com pla i nts a nd i nquir i es by Loer a a nd ot h erem plo yee s of C U Ico ncer ni ng the Ci ty’ s t re atm ent o fthe com pany. T he plead ings an d other su bm issi ons i n a law su it are ( w i th ve ryr ar e ex c ep ti ons) publi c, and i ftheyar ti cul ate iss u es of p u b lic c on c er n, m os t o b vio u sly bu t n ot on ly i n “ ca us e” l i ti gati o n, the y a r e wi th i n the s co pe o fthe f re e s peech cl ause ( and som eti m es the peti ti on f or re dress of gr i evance s cl ause) of the Fi rst A m endm ent. Se e, e.g ., C o nn ickv. M yers , 461 U
. S. 1 38, 146-48 (1983); B o rou gh of D ury ea v . G ua rnieri, 13 1 S

. Ct. 24 88, 24 93- 98 (20 11 ); Sal as v. Wi s co ns i n Dep’ tof Cor r e ct i ons , 49 3 F
. 3d 9 1 3 , 9 2 5 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); R e n d i s h v . C i tyo f Ta c o ma , 12 3 F. 3d 1216 , 1219

- 25 ( 9th Cir

. 1997 )

. CU I ’ s sui t incl ud es al l egatio ns thatthe Cityi s wasti ng the ta xpayers ’ m oney , wh i c h we ’ l l a s s ume i s e no ugh t o b r i ngthe c ase w i thi n the pr ot ecti on o fthe Fi rs t Am endm ent. S ee Wa insc o tt v. Henry, 315 F.3d 844 , 849-50 (7th C ir. 20 0 3 ); G lattv. Ch icago P ark D is tr ict, 87 F
. 3d 190, 193 (7th Cir. 1 9 9 6). Bu t the actions of w hich CU Icom p lai ns w ere no t r et al i at io n b uts i m pl y the c o nt i nua ti o n b ey o nd the i ni ti alfi ve- m onth per i od ofthe c ol d-sho uldertr eat
m ent that th e Ci ty had gi ven the co m pany duri ng tha t peri od beca use o fi ts suspi ci ons. Last, CU Icl ai m s under I l l i noi s l aw t h at the Ci ty bro ke co nt r ac ts tha t i t ha d m ade wi ththe co m pan y . The dec l i ne i n purchases duri ng the fi ve - m onth per i od r esul ted not o n l y fr o m th e C i t y ’ s tu r n i n gd o wnn e w b i d s b y th e c o m-10 N o. 10

- 3361 p an y bu t also from i ts re d uc ing its pu rch ase ord ers und e r r e qu i r e men t s c o nt r a c t s tha tthe Ci t y h a d ma de wi th th e c o mp a n y a n d f r o m i t s r e fu s i n gt o r e n e w s o me c o nt r a c t s tha te xp i r e d d ur i ngtha tp e r i o d. CUIc o nt e nd s that both the re du ced or ders an d the r efusal s t o re new expi re d contr acts were bre aches ofco ntra ct. A req uir ement s co nt r ac t woul d b e empty i fthe pu rchas erco uld atwil l deci de that he “r equi re d” l ess f ro m the sel l er . To a voi d consti tuti ng a bre ach, ther ef or e, a chang e i n re quir em ents has t o be in go od f ai th

— has t o be b as ed f orexam ple o n a r educti on i n dem and fo r th e pu rc ha ser’s end prod uc t and therefore in the p urch as er ’ s demand f o r the i nputpur ch as ed unde r the r e q uirem en ts con tract, rather th an on th e pu rch aser’s regretting h aving m ad e the cont ract. 810 I L C S 5/2-306(1); Schaw k, Inc. v. D onruss Trading C ard s, Inc. , 74 6 N
. E.2 d 18, 25 ( I l l

. A pp . 20 01)

. But the sel l erhas the b urden ofpro vi ng tha t the purchase r act ed in ba d fa i th i n re d u c in g h is “ re q uir em ents
. ”Z e i d l e rv . A &W Re s t au r an t s , In c. , 3 01 F.3d 57 2, 57 5 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ) (Ill in ois law ); Em pi r eGas Corp. v. Am e r i ca n Bake r i e s Co. , 84 0 F
. 2d 1333 , 1341 (7th Cir. 1988) (ditto). CU I ’ s m ostdra m at ic e xam ple o fan a l l ege d bre ach o f o n e o fth e r e q u i r e me n t s c o n t r a c t s i s th e C i t y ’ s n o tb uy i ng any d og f oo d fr om the com pany duri ng the fi vem onth per i od . S urel y, the com pany ar gues, the dogs ( pol i ce dog s) co uld notgo witho ut f oo d fo r fi ve m o nths

— th ey w ou ld h av e b e e n d riv en to roa m in pac k s, e at i ngs m al l c hi l dr en, o r ev en ea cho th er ; the p ath etic star v e d b od ies ofthe w eaker or m oreN o. 10

- 3361 11 f ast i dio us dogs would h av e l i tte re d the Chic ago si dew al ks. N one ofthi s happened. There f or e the City m ust h av e been get ti ng the dog f oo d fr om so m e o ther supp l i er, in vi ol ati on o fthe re quir em ents contr act. This i s conj ectur e, ra ther than actual evi den c e of b re ach, a nd c o nt r a r y c o nj e c t ur e s c a n e a s i l y b e p r o po s e d: that the Ci ty h ad o verbought dog f oo d, and w as wor k i ngo ffa s wol l eni nv en to r y ; that i t ha d r edu ce d the num bero fpol i ce dog s a s a n eco nom y m easure; that the do g f o o d tha tCUIh a d ob t a i ne d fr o m i t s s up pli er s l ate l y w as u npala tabl e. Onlyi m agi nati on l i m i ts conj ectur e. I n a c as e that had been dra ggi ng o n f or yea rs , the c om pany had am ple o pp or tuni ty i n pret ri al di scov ery t o a sc er ta i n the a ctua l r ea so ns f o r the de cl i ne in ord er s, a nd i t ei th erf ai l ed to a va i l i ts el fo fthe o ppo rtuni ty orf ound no evi dence to support i ts conj ectur e. CU I do e s c i t e t e s t i mon y o fa Ci t y e mpl o y e e n a med W ol f e that he w as or dered notto do a ny busi ness w i th th e c om pan y , pe r i o d, whi chi s so m e ev i den ce tha t th e Ci tywas f ai l i ngt o o bt ai n i ts r equi r ement s f r o m the co m pan y . Butthe t esti m o ny i s wea ka nd v ague , the key p ass age i n i t be i ng tha t “ f ro m thatti m e [ the date o f the o rdernotto do busi ness w i th CU I ] , W ol f e does not re call ord er in g a n yt h in g f r o m C U I, ev en on th e v alid con tracts that CU Ihad w ith th e C ity” (e m p h asis ad d ed ). Shou ld he ha ve recalled i t? W ho know s ? W olfe’s evi dence w as not enough t o ra i se a t ri abl e i ssue. I n its r ep l y b ri efCU Im enti ons f orthe fi rs t t i m e a n al l ege d b re ach by the City of a contr act to delive r sewer bri cks. The exte nd ed narr ati ve i n the dist ri ct c ourtto12 N o. 10

- 3361

w hi ch the bri efr efer s the r eaderdescr ibes com pli cate d contr actualm aneuver i ng. The co m pany r efu se d to del i verthe b ric ks unl ess the Cityexte nd ed the contr act te r m a nd i nc r ea se d the c o nt r act pri ce . A l et te r fr o m the re s po ns ib l e Ci t y o ffi c i a l r ej e c t e d tha t de man d. CU I descr ibe s th e o ffi ci alas havi ng bythatr ej ecti on “ re neged on herel ecti on t o extend the contr act, ” y et al so sta tes that i n the i nter val between the “el ecti on” and the “r enegi ng” “ CUI di d no t ha v e a l e g a l c o nt r a c t
. . . a nd was not re quir ed to del i ver . ” Afte r the “ re negi n g,” t he Ci ty pl ac ed ane m ergen cy o r derwi tha no th ers uppl i er, a nd the c om pany ar gu es t h at the pr oce ssi ng o fthe or der took longer th a n i f th e C ity had ordered from i t. L ater, it a d d s, th e s ew er -b ric k c on tr ac t w as tw ice reb id

— an d CU Iwonthe b i d. The Ci tysays th at i t ha d pl ac ed th e e me r g e n c y or derwi th a n o th e r s u p p l i e r b e c a u s e C UI w as re fusi ng to del i ver, pending f or m alm odi fi cati on o f i ts or i gi nal co ntra ct

— C U I ac kn ow led ge s t h is

. W e can ’t begin to fi gure o ut wh at w as going o n

— o r whatthe bre ach o fco ntra ct was. CU Imake s t he fur th era r g um en t ( ag ai n r el y i ng m ai nl y o n tes ti m ony by W ol f e) t h at du ri ng the fi vem on th per i od the Cityarbi tr ar i l y r efused to exte nd i ts co nt r ac ts wi th th e co m pan y whenthe c o nt r ac ts e xp ire d . Th e c om p an y a rg u es th at an u n r e a s o n ab le re fusalto ex tend a contr act i s a br each o fco ntra ct. N ot so. The p urpose o fi ncl ud i ng an expir ati on date i n a c ontr act i s t o al l ow a party t o term in ate i ts re l ati onshi p w i th the othe r party w i thout havi ng to gi ve a r ea so n.N o. 10

- 3361 13 Thi s ca se ha s dr ag g ed on for far t o o l o ng . I t ha s no p o s s ib l e me r i t
. L e tth i s b e th e l a s to fi t
. T h e j u d g m en t in fav or of th e d efe n d an ts is A FFI RMED .

1- 24- 12