FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 18, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1368 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 61 32 0- CV-PAS W ES T IND IE S N ET W ORK - I , L LC , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us NORTEL NE TW ORKS, (CALA) INC., RICHAR D A. NIXON , RAYMOND C. BULENGO, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(J un e 18, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN A a nd C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant W es t I ndi es N etw ork- I, L L C ( “ W es t I ndi es ”) appe al s th e gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of D ef en dants -Appe lle es N orte l N etw orksAd dit ion a l c la ims we re a sse rt e d b ut a re no t be ingpurs ue d o n a pp e a l. 1 2 (C A L A ), I nc . a nd tw o of

it s e m plo y ee s ( co lle ct ive ly

“N orte l” ) on a ll of

W es t I n d i e s ’s c l a i ms . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. W es t I ndi es br ough t su it ag ai nst N orte l c la im ing that N orte l f ai le d to pe rf orm it s or al c om

m itm en t t o ob ta in e qui ty

f inanc ing f

or W es t I ndi es to co nstru ct a nd t o op er at e ana dvanc ed sub m ar ine f

ibe r opt ic c ab le te le co m m uni catio ns n etw ork c onne ct ing E as te rnCarr ibe anisl an d c ountri es . W es t In die s c la im s th at

a s ac onse que nc e of

thi s f ai lur e, W es t I ndi es los t i ts a bil ity to pr oc ee d w iththe c onstru ct iona nd o pe ratio n of the ne tw ork; i t a lle ge d c la im s f or br ea chof or al c ontra ct , br ea chof

f idu ci ar y duty a nd p ro m iss or

y e sto ppe l. 1 In an ex ha us ti ve op in io n, t he di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d, as a m at te r of law, that (i) W est Indies failed to show that an oral contract e xisted un der w hich Nortel wa s oblig ated to guarantee the availability of the equity

funding that W est Indies needed; (ii) no fiduciary

relationship h ad been shown to exist between W est Indies an d N orte l, e ac h of

w hom ope rate d a t arm s- le ngth init s own bu sin es s in te re sts ; and (iii) because no definite and certain prom ise had been shown to sup port ju s t i f i e da n dr e a s o n ab l e r e l i a n c e , n o p r o mi s s o ry e s t o p p e l c o u l dap p l y. W es t I ndi es c onc ed es that the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed c or re ct ly it s C ount One bre ach of contrac t claim : no jury could find an enforceable contrac t betwee n3

W es t I ndi es a nd N orte l un de r w hic h N orte l w as obl igate d to guarante e fi nanc ing for W est Indies’ s venture. W est Indies argues on appeal that the dist rict court er re d init s di sm iss al of

it s C ount T w o br ea chof

duty of goo d f ai th and f ai r de al ing c la im . W es t I ndi es nowa sse rt s th at Co unt T w o a lle ge d ase parate a nd dis tin ct c ontra ct ua l a gr ee m en t un de r w hic h N orte l a gr ee d to m ak e a good f ai th ef fo rt to use it s c ont ac ts and r es our ce s to pr oc ur e inv es tor s f or W es t I ndi es in ex ch an ge f

or W es t I ndi es usi ng N orte l a s it s e qui pm en t su ppl ie r. B ut C ount s O ne and Tw o of the com

plaint each identifies the contract breac hed as the “ oral contract under w hich Nortel com m itted to ob tain all necessary equity capital financing” required by

W est Indies; the two counts alleged separate breaches of th e sa m e co nt ract . During oral ar gum ent on the m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent, the district co urt c al le d to W es t I ndi es ’ s a tte nti on tha t no c la im f or br ea chof

the duty of goo d fa ithe xis ts unde r Fl or ida lawind ep en de ntl y

of a n e nf or ce ab le c ontra ct . A s th is Co u rt h as o b s er v ed , “ [t ]h e g o o dfa i t h re qu i re m en td o es n o tex i s t‘in th e a i r. ’ Rather, it attaches only

to the perform ance of a

specific contrac tual obli gation.” John son E nte rp ri se s of

Ja ck sonv ill e, I nc . v. F PL G ro up, I nc , 162 F . 3d 1 290, 131 4 (1 1 Ci r. 199 8, c iti ng H ospi ta l C or p. of A m . v. F lor ida

Me d. Ctr. , I nc . , 710 S o. 2d th 573, 575 ( Fl a. 4 D CA199 8) . A ft er thi s he ar ing , W es t I ndi es a cknow le dge d ina th4

fi lin g e nti tle d S ta tus of

P en din g C la im s th at

the br ea ch es a lle ge d inCo unt s O ne an d Two co ul d b e m erg edin to a si ng le co un t. Be ca use no e nf

or ce ab le a gr ee m en t w as state d inCo unt O ne - - as W es t In die s c onc ed es - - an d aduty to pe rf orm in good f ai th atta ch es onl y

to the e xpr es s te rm s of a n e nf or ce ab le c ontra ct , W es t I ndi es se ek s to r ec as t C ount T w o to a sse rt

a se parate a nd d ist inc t e nf

or ce ab le obl igatio n by

N orte l t o us e its be st e ff

orts t o se cure f inanc ing . T he dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e no s pe ci fi c m en tio n of thi s “be st ef fo rt s” c ontra ct

be ca use it r ep re se nts ac re at ive r ec onstru ct ionof the c la im advanc ed in the c om

pla int . W e do n ot a cc ep t tha t C ount T w o se t ou t a

se parate co ntr ac t; an d, in any

e ve nt, a s am atte r of

law , no s uc h c ontra ct

r ea sona bly m ay be inf er re d onthi s r ec or d. W est Indies contends the district court erre d when it concluded as a m atter of lawthat no f

idu ci ar y r el at ion shi p ha d be ensho w n be tw ee n W es t I ndi es a nd N orte l. W es t I ndi es pr ed ic at ed the e xis te nc e of

af idu ci ar y r el at ion shi p onit s cl ai m ed “partne rs hip ” w ithN orte l. W es t I ndi es nowc onc ed es that no partne rs hip existed in th e legal sense; it argues that sufficient indicia of a c onfidential relationship existed to su pport im posit ion of a fiduciary

oblig ation. T he district co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t t he reco rdsu pp or te d n o s uc h o bl ig at io n; we ag ree.5

W e ac ce pt - - as did

the dis tr ic t c ourt - - that a f idu ci ar y r el at ion shi p m ay

be im pli ed in lawba se d onthe spe ci fi c fa ct s and c ir cum stanc es sur ro undi ng the part ie s r el at ion shi p and the tr an sa ct ionin w hic h th ey a re inv olv ed . S ee D oe v. Evans, 814 So.2d 370 , 374 (Fla. 2002 ). “ ‘ If a relation of trust and confidence ex ist s be tw ee n th e part ie s ( that i s to say , w he re c onf ide nc e is r ep ose d by

one party an d atr ust a cc ep te d by

the oth er , or

w he re c onf

ide nc e ha s be ena cquir ed a nd ab use d) , that i s su ff

ic ie nt a s apr ed ic at e fo r re lie f. ’ ” I d. quo tin g Q uin n v. P hip ps, 113 So . 419 , 421 ( 1927 ). B ut the r ec or d a llo w s th e im posi tio n of

no i m pli ed -i nlawf idu ci ar y obl igatio ns: W es t I ndi es f ai le d to pr of

fe r suf fi ci en t i ndi ci a of

tr ust an d c onf ide nc e re pose d inN orte l. I nst ea d, the r ec or d sh ow s an arm s- le ngth rel at io ns hi p b et ween W es t In di es an d No rte l wi th each act in g t o fu rth er i ts own busi ne ss i nte re sts . P ar

tie s de al ing a t arm ’ s le ngth ow e no d uty to pr ote ct

or be ne fi t the oth er . S ee T ay lor W oodr w o H om es I nc . v. 4/4 6- A Co rp . , 850 S o. 2d 53 6, 5 41 (Fl a. 5 DCA 20 03 ) (“ Whe n t he pa rti es are d eal in g a t ar m ’s len gt h, a th fiduciary relationship d oes not exis t because there is no du ty im posed on either party to protect or benefit the other. ”). W est Indies also claim s error in the rej ection of its prom issory estoppel cl ai m . T he dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed c or re ct ly the e le m en ts r equir ed

to es ta bli sh pr om iss or

y e sto ppe l l ia

bil ity : ( 1) apr om ise m ad e by the pr om iso r; ( 2) w hic h th e6

pr om iso r shou ld r ea sona

bly e xpe ct to ind uc e ac tio n or

f or be ar an ce on the part

of the pr om ise e; ( 3) that i n f ac t i nduc ed

suc h a ct ionor

f or be ar an ce ; and tha t ( 4) inj ust ic e can be a voi de d on ly by e nf or ci ng the pr om ise . S ee W . R. G ra ce & Co . v. G eo da taS er

vic es I nc . , 547 S o. 2d 9 19, 924 ( Fl a. 198 9) ( ap ply ing Re state m en t (S ec ond) of

Co ntr ac ts § 90 ( 1979 )) . P ro m iss or y e sto ppe l ha s no appl ic at ionunl es s the e vid en ce is cl ear an d c onvi nc ing , se e id. a t 92 5, a nd the te rm s of the pr om ise ar e de fi nit e. S ee V en co r H ospi ta ls v . Bl ue Cr oss Bl ue S hie ld o f Rh ode I sland, 284 F. 3d 1 174, 118 5 ( 11 Ci r. 200 2) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that the pr om ise th W es t I ndi es sou ght

to en fo rc e -- N orte l’ s a lle ge d c om m itm en t t o se cure e qui ty fin an ci ng -- was to o i nd efi ni te an d u nc ert ai n t o s up po rt p ro m is so ry est op pe l. W est Indies now contends th at even if N ortel wa s under no cont ractual obl igatio n to se cure e qui ty f inanc ing a nd, f

urthe r, e ve n if

N orte l w as und er

no co n tra ct u al o b l i g at i o n t o u s e i t s b es tef fo rt s t o s ec u re s u ch fi n an ci n g , No rt el ’s pr om ise s to intro duc e W es t I ndi es to pot en tia l i nve sto rs sho uld non ethe le ss b e en fo rc ed to av oid inj ust ic e. T he pr om iss or y e sto ppe l c ount

in the c om

pla int alleges that Nortel “ repeate dly prom ised and comm itted to ob tain all necessary equity c ap ita l f inanc ing ;” ne ith er

the pr om iss or

y e sto ppe l c ount

in the c om

pla int nor W es t I ndi es ’ s su

bm iss ionin oppo sit ionto N orte l’ s sum m ar y j udgm en t m oti on re fe re nc es the m or e lim ite d go od f ai th e ff orts pr om iss or

y e sto ppe l c la im

W es t7

Indies seeks to advance on appeal. T he district court dism issed the prom issory estoppel cou nt pleaded in th e com plaint; n o clear and convin cing evidence j ust if ie d a ppl ic at ionof

pr om iss or

y e sto ppe l. E ve n if

w e w er e to c onsi de r W es t Indies’ s newly

cra fted claim , W est Indies failed, as a m atter of law, to proffer suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to showc le ar ly a nd c onvi nc ing ly

that N orte l’ s st at em en ts co nst itu te d de fi nit e pr om ise s th at r ea sona bly ind uc ed r el ianc e on the part

of W es t In die s su chthat pr om iss or y e sto ppe l w as r equir ed

to av oid inj ust ic e. S ee id. AFFIRMED.