## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t24,2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

E RI C C . J AC KS ON a n d GR E AT B A S IN C O M P A N IE S , IN C .,

D efen d an ts/ C o u n terP l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. N o. 04- 4070 VO LVO TRU CK S NO RTH A M E R IC A , IN C .,

P lai n ti ff/C o u n terD efe ndant

- A ppel l ee. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF UT AH ( D. C. NO. 0 2 - CV- 2 7 - P GC) R i char d C . C ahoon, D ur ham Jones & Pi negar , Sal tL ake Ci t y , U t ah, for D efen dan t/ C ou nter -Pl ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants . S tep h e n K . C h ristia n se n (R o b e rt S . C a m p b e ll an d R o b e rt M . A n d e rso n w ith h im on the br i ef) V an C ot t , B agl ey , C or nw al l & M cC ar thy , Sal tL ake Ci t y , U t ah, for Pl ai nt i ff/ C ount er - D efe ndant

- A ppel l ee. B efo re HENR Y , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge.- 2-

E ri c C . Jackson i s the p ri ncipal shareholderof G reatB asi n C om pan i es, I nc. , the par entcompany of var i ous V ol vo tr uck dea l er s hi ps thatoper at ed i n the W es tand M i dw es t , i ncl udi ng U t ah and N ebr as ka. T hi s appea l ar i s es outof the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of cl ai m s fi l ed byJ acks on and G r eatB as i n C om pani es a g a i n s tVo l v o T r u c k s No r th Am e r i c a , I n c . F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w, we c o n c l u d e th a twe h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d AFF I RM the d e c isio n s o fth e d istric t co u rt. I . Backg r ound I n 1977, J acks on cr eat ed the fi r s tof w hatbeca m e s ever al r el at ed aut om obi l e dea l er s hi p compani es . A s the dea l er s hi ps gr ew , he w oul d for m new compani es , m os tof w hi ch i ncl uded the w or ds “G r eatB as i n” s om ew her e i n the name and l i s t ed hi m as s ol e orm aj or i t y s har ehol der . I n 1983, thes e compani es began de al i ng vehi cl es pur chas ed fr om V ol vo T r ucks N or th A m er i ca, I nc. ( V ol vo) a n d w e re in iti a llysu c c e ss fu l in d o in g so . A c c o rd in g to Ja c k so n , b y th e e a rly 1 9 9 0 s, th e G re a t B a sin d e a ler sh ip s h a n d led a p p ro x im a tely ten p e rc e n t o fa ll V ol vo’ s s al es i n the U ni t ed St at es , and thus , atV ol vo’ s behes t , began pur chas i ng la rg e q u a n titie s o fv e h ic le s fro m th e m a t a s u b s ta n tia l d is c o u n t. A s the bus i nes s cont i nued t o expand, openi ng new deal er s hi ps i n var i ous s t at es , J acks on w as expr es s l y named t he “c ontr ol l i ng i ndi vi dual ” or“dea l er p rin c ip a l” o fe a c h o fth e V o lv o d e a ler sh ip s a n d a c ted a s g u a ra n to r o fc e rta in d e b ts and obl i gat i ons of the dea l er s hi ps . A pl t . B r . at3. H e al l eges thathe di d s o bas ed- 3-

o n V o lv o ’s p ro m ise s o fh ig h re tu rn s o n h is in v e stm e n ts a n d c o n tin u e d a c c e ss to the pr ofi ts our ces upon w hi ch hi s deal er s hi ps depende d. B utJ acks on bel i eves thatV ol vo di d noti nt end t o keep thes e pr om i s es . J acks on cl ai m s that , i f he ha d know n aboutV ol vo’ s pl ans t o “el i m i nat e vi r tual l y t w o- thi r ds of i t s pr oductl i nes and i t s engi ne pr oduct s , ” he w oul d nothave c ont i nued t o i nves ti n V ol vo deal er s hi ps . C om pl . at11. In F eb rua ry1 9 9 6 , V o lvo ’s C E O an n o u n ce d that h alf o f it s cu rren t dea lers w o u ld n o t b e in b u sin e ss b y th e e n d o fth e fo llo w in g y e a r. V o lv o e x e c u tiv e s to ld th e d e a ler s th e y w a n ted “ lar g e r, re g io n a l d e a ler s w h o w e re w ill in g to in v e st a ll theyhad i nt o new t err i t or i es , new equi pm ent , l ar gerfac i l i t i es , and addi t i onal empl oy ees . ” Id . at12. T he C E O w ar ned the dea l er s that“thos e w ho di d notgr ow r api dl y and s ubs t ant i al l y w oul d s i m pl y be el i m i nat ed. ” Id . T he G r eatB as i n deal er s hi ps heede d thi s w ar ni ng and conti nued t o gr ow and i ncr eas e r evenue s . I n 1997, w i th the enc our agementof V ol vo, J acks on pur chas ed a dea l er s hi p i n O m aha, N ebr as ka, w hi ch bec ame G r eatB as i n T r ucks of N ebr as ka, I nc. ( G r eatB as i n N ebr as ka) . J acks on w as r es pons i bl e forpr ovi di ng $400, 000 as a d e p o sit o n th e p u rc h a se . A c c o rd in g to Ja c k so n , h e a n d V o lv o “ c lea rly u n d e rs to o d ” th e d e a l w o u ld in c lu d e c e rt a in F o rd fra n c h is e s . A p lt. B r. a t 4 . H ow ever , aft erJ acks on m ade hi s depos i t , he l earned the s el l erno l onger p o s s e s s e d th o s e fra n c h is e s . N onethel es s , bas ed upon furtherverbal pr om i s es of as s i s t ance and as s ur ance s of s ucce s s by V ol vo, J acks on w entfor w ar d w i th the- 4-

p u rch ase an d g av e u p h is righ t t o resc ind the p u rch ase ag ree m en t w ith the s ell er, th e re b y fo re g o in g h is d e p o sit. B y 1999, the G r eatB as i n oper at i ons contr ol l ed V ol vo deal er s hi ps i n s even s ta te s . T h e irre v e n u e s g re w fro m $ 2 5 m illio n to a lm o s t $ 3 0 0 m illio n p e r ye a r. H o w e v e r, d u rin g th is g ro w th p e rio d , the ir to tal d e b t als o g re w fro m $ 5 m ill io n to o v e r $ 6 0 m ill io n . In Ju n e 2 0 0 0 , all o fth e G re a t B a sin e n tities b e c a m e w h o lly ow ned subsi diar i es of a n ew l y creat ed p arentcom pan y , G reatB asi n C om pan i es, In c . D u rin g th e re m a in d e r o f2 0 0 0 , Ja c k so n a n d G re a t B a sin C o m p a n ies h e ld ongoi ng negot i at i ons w i th V ol vo forthe s al e of the N ebr as ka dea l er s hi p. G r eat B as i n C om pani es al l eges i tw oul d nothave c ont i nued t o hol d the N ebr as ka deal er s hi p dur i ng thatper i od butforthe pr om i s es of pur chas e made by V ol vo. E x p e rie n c in g su b sta n tial lo ss e s in 2 0 0 0 a n d 2 0 0 1 , m o st o fG re a t B a sin C o m p a n ies ’ d e a ler sh ip s filed fo r b a n k ru p tcy. V o lv o p u rc h a se d th e p rim a ry a ss e ts of the bankruptdeal er s hi ps fr om the i ndi vi dual tr us t ees i n bankrupt cy . T he dea l i ncl uded an a gr eementby the tr us t ees t o s ett l e, w ai ve, orr el eas e al l cl ai m s the i ndi vi dual deal er s hi ps m ayhave ha d agai ns tV ol vo. O n J anuary 10, 2001, V ol vo’ s fi nance ar m , V ol vo C om m er ci al Fi nance , L L C ( V ol vo Fi nance ) , fi l ed s ui tagai ns tJ acks on, G r eatB as i n C om pani es , and r el at ed part i es overan al l eged br eac h of a $1. 3 m i l l i on l oan agr eement . J acks on and G r eatB as i n C om pani es r es ponded byfi l i ng thei row n cl ai m s agai ns tV ol vo and V ol vo Fi nance bas ed on conduc ts urr oundi ng the l oan agr eementand otherJac k so n an d G rea t B asin C o m p an ies also in itial lyap p ea led th e c o u rt ’s 1 1 2 (b )( 6 ) d is m is s a l o fth e irc la im o fin d u c e m e n t to b re a c h fid u c ia ry d u ty. H o w e v e r, th e y w ith d re w th e ir a p p e a l o fth is iss u e a t o ra l ar g u m e n t o n th e b a sis thattheyhad l os tthei rdi r ectbr eac h of fi duci ar y dut y cl ai m . W i thouta br eac h of fid u c iar y d u ty , the y c o n c lu d e d , itw a s im p o ss ib le to e sta b lish in d u c e m e n t to br eac h.

- 5- a lle g e d w ro n g fu l a c ts . I n t w o s epar at e 12( b) ( 6) r ul i ngs and one s um m ar y j udgm entr ul i ng, the d istric t co u rt d isp o se d o fa n u m b e r o fth e se c laim s. Ja c k so n a n d G re a t B a sin C o m p an ies ap p ea l th e fo ll o w ing d ispo sition s. F ir st, Jac k so n ap p ea ls th e c o u rt ’s R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) d ism iss a l o fh is c a u se o fa c tio n a risin g u n d e r th e A u to m o b ile D eal er s ’ D ayi n C our tA ct . Second, J acks on and G r eatB as i n C om pani es appea l the court ’ s deci s i on t o gr ants um m ar y j udgm entforV ol vo on J acks on’ s fr aud, pr om i s s or y es t oppel , and negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on cl ai m s , as w el l as G r eat Ba s i n Co mp a n i e s ’ s e p a r a t e p r o mi s s o r y e s t o p p e l c l a i m. 1 A ft erJ acks on and G r eatB as i n C om pani es fi l ed a noti ce ofappea l , the d istric t co u rt issu e d a se p a ra te o rd e r a d o p tin g a stip u latio n o fth e p a rties to d ism iss w ith p reju d ice (1 ) a ll cla im s b y a n d a g a in st V o lv o F in a n c e a n d (2 ) a ll unr es ol ved cl ai m s by J acks on and G r eatB as i n C om pani es agai ns tV ol vo. T h is l as tor derr es ol ved the r emai ni ng i s s ues i n the ca s e. I I . D i s cus s i on A . Juri s di ct i on W e mustfi r s tcons i derw hetherJ acks on and G r eatB as i n C om pani es have- 6-

appea l ed a “ fi nal ” j udgm entfr om the di s tr i ctcour tthati s r i pe forourr evi ew . 28 U . S. C . § 1291. A s a gene r al m att er , a j udgm enti n a cons ol i dat ed ac t i on thatdoes notdi s pos e of a l l cl ai m s i s notcons i der ed a fi nal appea l abl e dec i s i on under § 1 2 9 1 . Tri ni ty Broadcas t i ng C or p. v. E l l er , 8 2 7 F .2 d 6 7 3 , 6 7 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). V ol vo ar gues that , beca us e J acks on and G r eatB as i n fi l ed thei rnot i ce ofappea l w h il e o ther c lai m s rem aine d p en d ing in the ca se, an d b ec au se th ey fa il ed to cu re th a t d e fe c t b y o b tain in g c e rtific a tio n u n d e r 5 4 (b ) o fth e F e d e ra l R u les o fC iv il Pr ocedur e, w e s houl d decl i ne t o ent er t ai n the appe al . H ow ever , w her e part i es a p p e a l n o n -fin a l o rd e rs, th e c o u rt’s s u b se q u e n t issu a n c e o fa n o rd e r “ e x p licitly a dju d ic a tin g a ll r e m a in in g c la im s ” m a y c a u s e a c a s e to ri p e n fo r a p p e lla te re v ie w . Lew i s v. B . F . G oodr i ch C o. , 850 F. 2d 641, 645 ( 10th C i r . 1988) ( en banc ) ( exer ci s i ng appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on w her e pl ai nt i ffs s oughtand obt ai ned s ubs equent cour tor derdi s pos i ng of out s t andi ng cl ai m ) . A s not ed above , thi s i s exac t l y w hat h a p p e n e d h e re . B utt o fur thercompl i cat e thi ngs , V ol vo poi nt s outthatone of J acks on and G r eatB as i n’ s cl ai m s — ci vi l cons pi r acy— w as di s m i s s ed w ith o u t p re ju d ice to r ef i l i ng . T hus , even though thatcl ai m w as notappea l ed, V ol vo ar gues the ju d g m e n t b e lo w is s til l n o n -fin a l fo r p u rp o se s o fo u r re v iew . O u r g e n e ra l ru le is thata part y cannotobt ai n appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on w her e the di s tr i ctcour thas d ism iss e d a t lea st o n e c laim w ith o u t p reju d ice b e c a u se th e c a se h a s n o t b e e n fu lly d is p o s e d o fin th e lo w e r c o u rt . See H ei m ann v. Snead , 1 3 3 F .3 d 7 6 7 , 7 6 9 (1 0 th- 7-

C i r . 1998) ( appl y i ng C old M etal Proce ss C o. v. United E ng i neeri ng & F ou nd ry C o. , 3 5 1 U .S . 4 4 5 (1 9 5 6 )); C ook v. R ocky M tn. B ank Not e C o. , 974 F. 2d 147, 148 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). T h a t r u le d o e s n o t a p p ly in e v e ry c ir c u m s ta n c e , h o w e v e r. W e h a v e p re v io u sly h e ld , “A lth o u g h a d ism iss a l w ith o u t p reju d ice is u su a llyn o t a fi nal deci s i on, w her e the di s m i s s al fi nal l y di s pos es of the ca s e s o thati ti s not s ubj ectt o fur therpr ocee di ngs i n fede r al cour t , the di s m i s s al i s fi nal and appea l abl e. ” A m az on, Inc. v. D i r tC amp, Inc. , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 1 2 7 1 , 1 2 7 5 (10 th C ir . 2001) ( hol di ng di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o decl i ne s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on and d ism iss sta te c laim s w ith o u t p reju d ice fo r re fili n g in sta te c o u rt e ffe c tiv e ly d is p o s e d o fe n tir e a c tio n ). T he “c r i t i cal det er m i nat i on” her e i s w hetherJ acks on and G r eatB as i n have b e e n “ e ffe c tiv e ly ex c lu d e d fro m fe d e ra l c o u rtu n d e r t h e p re s e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” Id . U nderU t ah l aw , ci vi l cons pi r acyr equi r es , as one of i t s es s enti al el ement s , an u n d e rl y in g to rt . See A l ta Indu s. L td. v. H urst , 846 P. 2d 1282, 1290 n. 17 ( U t ah 1 9 9 3 ). A lth o u g h th e d istric t co u rt d ism iss e d Ja c k so n a n d G re a t B a sin ’s c iv il con spi racycl ai m w i tho ut pr ej ud i ce, i tdis m i ssed theirun derl y i ng t ortcl ai m s w ith pr ej udi ce . T h u s, p rac ti ca ll y sp ea k ing , Jac k so n an d G rea t B asin C o m p an ies are b a rre d fro m fu rth e r liti g a tio n o n th e c o n sp ira c y c laim b e c a u se th e y c a n n o t li tig a te the pr edi cat e t or t s . T heyther ebyfal l w i thi n the A m az on exce pt i on. A ccor di ngl y , the ca s e i s r i pe forappel l at e cons i der at i on.- 8-

B . T he A ut om obi l e D eal ers ’ D ay i n C ourtA ct Jac k so n fil ed su itag ains t V o lvo u n d er the A u tom o b il e D ea lers’ D ay in C o u rt A ct , 15 U . S. C . § 1221, ets eq. ( A D D C A ) . T hats t atut e author i zes any “aut om obi l e dea l er ” t o fi l e fe der al cl ai m s agai ns tm anufa ctur er s ar i s i ng fr om franchis e rel at i on shi ps. T he q uest i on here i s w hetherJackson qu al i fi es as a d e a le r a n d is th e re fo re a u th o ri z e d to s u e u n d e r t h e s ta tu te . T hree provis i on s of t he A D D C A gu i de o ur anal y si s. T he fir stest abli shes a caus e of a ct i on: A n aut om obi l e dea l erm aybr i ng s ui t agai ns t any aut om obi l e manufactur er

. . . b y re a so n o f th e fa ilu re o fsa id a u to m o b ile m a n u fa c tu re r . . . to a c t in good fai th i n per for m i ng orcompl y i ng w i th any of the t er m s orpr ovi s i ons of the fr anchi s e, ori n t er m i nati ng, canc el i ng, ornotr ene w ing the fra n c h is e w ith s a id d e a le r . . . . 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 2 . S tan d in g is th u s lim ited to a n “ a u to m o b ile d e a ler ,” w h ich is defined as anyper s on, par t ner s hi p, corpor at i on oras s oci at ion , orotherfor m of b u s in e s s e n te rp ri s e . . . operat i ng un d er the t erm s of a f ranchi s e and engage d i n the s al e ordi s tr i buti o n of pas s engercar s , tr ucks , ors t at i on w ago ns. 15 U . S . C . § 1 22 1(c) (em ph asi s added ). A “franchis e” i s, i n tur n, defined as the w r i t t en agr eement o rcontr act bet w een a ny aut om obi l e manufactur er engage d i n comm er ce a nd anyaut om obi l e dea l erw hi ch purpor t s to fix the leg a l rig h ts a n d liab ili ties o fth e p a rties to su c h a g re e m e n t o r c o n tra c t. 1 5 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 1 (b). B as ed on the pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e, an aut om obi l e dea l erm us tbe a- 9-

par t y t o a fr anchi s e agr eementw i th the manufactur er , i n thi s cas e V ol vo. J acks on conce des thathe w as not . N onethel es s , J acks on as ks us t o car ve outan exc epti on to the p lai n lang u ag e o f th e statute b ec au se h is pe rson al ec o n o m ic i n terests are “i nextr i cabl y w oven” i nt o G r eatB as i n C om pani es ’ corpor at e i nt er es t s . H e ur ges us t o fol l ow t w o cas es fr om the Fi fth and Seventh C i r cui t s thathave i nt erpr et ed the A D D C A t o c o n fe rs t a n d i n g o n s h a r e h o l d e r/ o p e r a t o r s i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . We decl i ne t o do s o. Fi r s t , J acks on poi nt s us t o Kavanaugh v. F ord M otorC o. , 3 5 3 F .2 d 7 1 0 (7 th C i r . 1965) . I n thatcas e, For d M ot orC om panyent er ed a fr anchi s e agr eementw i th a d e a le rs h ip c o rp o ra tio n in w h ic h it o w n e d 1 0 0 p e rc e n t o fth e v o tin g s to c k . K a v a n a u g h w a s a sig n a to ry to th e fra n c h ise a g re e m e n t an d w a s g iv e n fu ll m anage r i al r es pons i bi l i t y overthe dea l er s hi p. A ft erthe fr anchi s e bega n l os i ng m oneyand the dea l er s hi p’ s s t ock bec ame w or thl es s , K avana ugh s ued underthe A D D C A . T he Seventh C i r cui tdeci ded that , beca us e For d M ot orC om panyow ned a ll o fth e v o tin g sto c k in th e d e a ler sh ip c o rp o ra tio n , itw o u ld b e a b su rd to a ss u m e it w oul d agr ee t o i ni t i at e an A D D C A cl ai m agai ns ti t s el f. T hus , the onl y w ayforthe deal er s hi p t o avai l i t s el f of the pr ot ecti ons of the A ctw oul d be t o “pi er ce the c o rp o ra te v e il” a n d a llo w K a v a n a u g h to p ro te c t th e d e a le rs h ip ’s in te re s ts . T he fa ct s of the Kavanaugh cas e ar e notbefor e us t oday , and thus w e nee d not deci de w hethert o adopti t s r eas oni ng. T he Seventh C i r cui tchos e t o ext end the prot ect i on s of t he A D D C A t o an i nd i vidual w ho w as a si gn at oryt o the franchi seJ acks on fi l ed a s uppl ement al author i t y as ki ng us t o t ake “j udi ci al not i ce” 2 of the fa ctthatone of the G r eatB as i n enti t i es nei therexer ci s ed i t s r i ghtt o s ue u n d e r th e A D D C A n o r b a rg a in e d it aw a y b u t is n o w p re c lu d e d fro m fili n g a c laim b e c a u se th e sta tu te o flim itatio n s h a s p a ss e d . T h is iss u e h a s n o t b e e n p ro p e rly p re se n ted to u s o n a p p e a l, an d w e d e c lin e to c o n sid e r it. T h e o n lyA D D C A c laim pendi ng on appea l i s the one fi l ed byJ acks on; the s t atus of a c l ai m neverfi l ed by a s epar at e party i s i rr el evantt o ourr es ol ut i on of thi s cas e.

- 10- agr eementand w as ther efor e ar guabl y “oper at i ng underthe t er m s of a fr anchi s e. ” See i d. a t 7 1 7 (q u o tin g 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 1 (c )). B y c o n tra st, Ja c k so n a d m its h e “ d id notper s onal l y s i gn the fr anchi s e agr eement . ” A pl t . B r . at7. I n addi t i on, the Seventh C i r cui t ’ s anal y s i s w as dr i ven i n l ar ge partby i t s r ecogni t i on that K avana ugh w as the only person o r ent i t y w ho cou l d h ave p ursued an act i on against th e m a n u fa c tu re r u n d e r t h e A D D C A . Kavanaugh , 3 5 3 F .2 d a t 7 1 7 (“ It is i nconce i vabl e thatFor d, ow ni ng al l the voti ng s t ock of the dea l er s hi p corpor at i on and bei ng i n compl et e contr ol of i t , w oul d evers eek the pr ot ecti on affor ded bythe sta tu te.” ) H e re , V o lv o d id n o t co n tro l th e o p e ra tio n s o fth e G re a t B a sin corpor at i ons and thus coul d nothave c om pl et el y pr ecl uded them from m aki ng the decis i on t o sue. I nd eed, m ostof the corporat i on s ( w hich Jackson co ntr oll ed) cho se t o use that ri gh t as a bargai ning t oo l du ri ng the l i qu i dati on process. C ompa re 2 Vi ncelv. Whi t e M otorC or p. , 521 F. 2d 1113, 1120 ( 2d C i r . 1975) ( fi ndi ng “no j u s t i fi c a t i o n fo ra l l o wi n g th e s h a r e h o l d e r s . . . t o ma i n t a i n a n a c t i o n i n th e i ro wn name” w her e the corpor at i on “expl i ci t l y r el i nqui s hed” i t s cl ai m s i n bankrupt cy pr ocee di ngs ) . T hes e cr i t i cal di ffe r ence s r enderthe r eas oni ng of Kavanaugh in a p p lic a b le to th is c a s e .- 11-

T he seco nd case on w hich Jackson h eavil y rel i es i s York C hrys l er - P lym outh, Inc. v. C hrys l erC r edi tC or p. , 447 F. 2d 786 ( 5th C i r . 1971) . I n York , the F ifth C i r cui tpurpor t ed t o adoptthe r eas oni ng of Kavanaugh . See i d. at 79 0 . H o w ev er, th e a n a ly sis w a s q u ite d iffe re n t. In th a t ca se , the Y o rk s o p e ra ted d e a ler sh ip corpor at i ons pur s uantt o an agr eementw i th the manufactur er , C hr y s l er . A tthe out s et , the courtr ecogni zed thatthe Y orks w er e “nots i gni ng par t i es t o the fr anchi s e agr eement . ” Id. M or eover , the Y orks , r atherthan C hr y s l er , m ai nt ai ned “contr ol of the s t ock of the dea l er s hi p corpor at i on, ” i d. , so th e re w a s n o re a so n to su sp e c t th e m a n u fa c tu re r c o u ld p ro h ib it th e c o rp o ra tio n fro m fili n g su it as it d id in Kavanaugh . N onethel es s , the Fi fth C i r cui tal l ow ed the Y orks t o pur s ue i ndi vi dual claim s ag ains t C h ry sler un d er the A D D C A o n the g rou n d s tha t th ey w ere

“ in e x tr ic a b ly w o v e n ” in to th e fra n c h is e re la tio n s h ip . Id. T he courtnot ed thatthe “ind ividu als w o u ld n o t com e w ith in the sco p e o f th e A ct m ere lyb ec au se th ey w ere s ol e s t ockhol der s , offi cer s , and di r ect or s of the corpor at e fr anchi s e hol der . ” Id. H ow ever , the uni que pos i t i on hel d by thes e i ndi vi dual s w as demonstr at ed bythe factthat C hry sl er w as expli ci t l y given t he p ow er t o ter m i nate the franch i se agr eementi f ei therof the Y orks di ed orfai l ed t o m ai nt ai n acti ve managementof th e c o rp o ra tio n o r w e re c o n v ic te d o fc e rt a in c ri m e s . Id. at79 0– 91 . T hu s, becau se the c o u rtd ee m ed the Y o rks “ esse n ti al t o o p era ti o n o f th e d ea lership” b y C h ry sler, th e y w e re g ra n te d s ta n d in g u n d e r t h e A D D C A . Id. at790. J acks on ar gues thatw e s houl d adoptthe r eas oni ng of Yorka n d a p p lyit t o h isD es pi t e J acks on’ s s ugges t i on t o the contr ar y , w e have noty etcons i der ed 3 thi s i s s ue. I n C ol oni alF ord, Inc. v. F ord M otorC o. , 5 9 2 F .2 d 1 1 2 6 , 1 1 2 9 (1 0 th C i r . 1979) , w e ci t ed Yorkfo r i ts plain lan g u ag e interp retati o n o f th e term “ m a n u fa c tu re r,” n o t th e e x c e p tio n to th e p lain lan g u a g e th a t Yorkcr eat ed forthe te rm “ d e a le r.”

- 12- c a se b e c a u se h e w a s th e p rin c ip a l o r so le s h a re h o ld e r o fe a c h o fth e G re a t B a sin su b sid iar ies a n d w a s h e a v ilyin v o lv e d in th e n e g o tiatio n s fo r V o lv o d e a ler sh ip agr eement s . T her efor e, he al l eges , he t oo w as “i nextr i cabl y w oven” i nt o the b u s in e s s a rr a n g e m e n ts a n d “ e s s e n tia l to th e o p e ra tio n ” o fth e v a ri o u s d e a le rs h ip s . T h is is a q u esti o n o f first im p ression fo r o u r circu it . A s a p reli m inary m att er, 3
w e n o te th a t m o st o th e r c irc u its h a v e e x p re ss lyre fu se d to c a rv e o u t ex c e p tio n s to th e A D D C A . See Bi s hay v. A m . Is uz u M otors , Inc. , 404 F. 3d 491 ( 1s tC i r . 2005) ( cons tr ui ng anal ogous s t atut e and r ej ecti ng York ); Vi ncelv. Whi t e M otorC or p. , 521 F. 2d 1113, 1120 ( 2d C i r . 1975) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng York and Kavanaugh ); Tuckerv. C hrys l erC r edi tC or

p. , 149 F. 3d 1170, *4 ( 4th C i r . 1998) ( unpubl i s hed) ( r ej ecti ng York ); O l s on M otorC o. v. G eneralM otorC or p. , 7 0 3 F . 2 d 2 8 4 , 2 8 9 n . 5 (8th C ir . 1983) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng York ); Sh erm an v. B ri t i sh L eyl an d M otors , 601 F. 2d 429, 440 n. 11 ( 9th C i r . 1979) ( r ej ecti ng York ); P ears on v. F ord M otorC o. , 68 F. 3d 1301, 1303 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng York ). B uts ee Rea v. F ord M otorC o. , 497 F. 2d 577, 584 ( 3d C i r . 1974) ( appl y i ng York ). W e a g re e w ith th e m ajo rityp o sitio n . T h e tex t o fth e sta tu te p lain lyc u ts agai ns tJ acks on. W her e a s t atut e i s unambi guous on i t s fac e, the courtneed not in q u ir e fu rt h e r. C o n n e c ticu t Na t’l B a n kv . G e rm a in , 5 0 3 U .S . 2 4 9 , 2 5 3 (1 9 9 2 ).- 13-

M or eover , w her e part i es choos e the corpor at e for m and r ece i ve al l the bene fi t s that flo w fro m th a t s tr u c tu re , w e s h o u ld b e h e s ita n t to ig n o re th e c o n s e q u e n c e s . Ja c k so n h a s n o t alle g e d a n “ a lter e g o ” th e o ry , n o r h a s h e a rg u e d th a t w e sh o u ld p ier c e th e c o rp o ra te v e il o fth e G re a t B a sin e n tities to e x p o se th e sh a re h o ld e rs to p e rso n a l li a b ili ty . H e h a s n o t m a d e th is a rg u m e n t fo r g o o d re a so n : to d o so w o u ld r i s k e x p o s i n g h i s o wn a s s e t s t o c r e d i t o r s o fth e b a n k r u p tc o rp o r a t i o n s . I n s h o r t , we see n o rea so n to d ep art fro m the p lai n lang u ag e o f th e A D D C A an d there fo re decl i ne t o ext end i t s appl i cati on t o thos e w ho do notqual i fyas “dea l er s ” underthe A c t. A cc o rdin g ly , w e d ism iss Jac k so n ’s A D D C A claim fo r l ac k o f statuto ry s t andi ng. C . S tat e L aw C l aim s L as t , J acks on and G r eatB as i n C om pani es appea l the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of fours t at e l aw cl ai m s . T hes e i ncl ude thr ee c l ai m s br oughtby J acks on ( fr aud, pr om i s s or y es t oppel , and negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on) and a s epar at e cl ai m br ought by G r eatB as i n C om pani es ( pr om i s s or y es t oppel ) . T he di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm entagai ns tJ acks on and G r eatB as i n C om pani es on the bas i s that theyfai l ed t o s how an ac tual i nj ur y and ther efor e l acke d s t andi ng forpurpos es of fede r al cour tj ur i s di ct i on. W e agr ee thats um m ar y j udgm entw as appr opr i at e but fo r s lig h tly d iffe re n t r e a s o n s th a n th o s e a rt ic u la te d b e lo w . 1. C ons t i t ut i ona l St andi ng- 14-

I n gr ant i ng s um m ar y j udgm ent , the di s tr i ctcour tcons i der ed the s t at e l aw c la im s in te rm s o fc o n s titu tio n a l s ta n d in g . A s th e c o u rtc o rr e c tly p o in te d o u t, a p artyp u rsuin g an ac ti o n in fed era l cou rtm u st m ee t th e re q u ir em en ts ofA rt icl e III sta n d in g : (1 ) inju ry in fa c t th a t is (2 ) tra c e a b le to th e d e fe n d a n t an d (3 ) re d re ss a b le b y th e c o u rt . E ss e n c e , In c . v. C ity o f F e d . H e ig h ts , 2 8 5 F . 3 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 8 0 (10 th C ir . 2002) ( ci t i ng L u

ja n v . D e

fen d e rs o

f Wild lif

e , 5 0 4 U. S . 5 5 5 , 5 6 0 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ) . An

“ a c tu a l o r i m m in e n t” inju ry m u s t b e p re s e n t fo r a p a rt y to p ro c e e d o n its c la im s . Id. T he purpos e of the s t andi ng i nqui r y i s nott o det er m i ne w hethera part y has pr oven i t s cas e butt o gauge w hetheri ts houl d be gr ant ed ac ces s t o the fe der al cour t s . T he foc us of the i nj ur y el ementi s on ens ur i ng a l egi t i m at e di s put e bet w een th e p a rt ie s . See Luj an , 497 U . S. at883 ( deny i ng s t andi ng t o chal l enge envi r onm ent al pol i cybeca us e pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egati ons thattheyus ed l and i n the vi ci ni t y of affec t ed ar eas di d notes t abl i s h a conne ct i on bet w een them and t he p ro p o se d g o v e rn m e n t ac tio n ). A p lain tiffw h o is p e rso n a llyh a rm e d h a s a sta k e in th e litig a tio n a n d is n o t a m e re in te rm e d d le r. See Si er ra C l ub v. M or ton , 40 5 U. S. 72 7, 73 9 (197 2) ( den y i ng st and i ng t o p reventcon struct i on of ski r esortbecau se gener al envi r onm ent al conce r ns w er e nots uffi ci entt o demonstr at e thes e pl ai nt i ffs w o u ld b e p e rso n a llya ffe c ted b y th e p rojec t). F o r th is re a so n , the iss u e g e n e ra lly a rise s in th e c o n stitu tio n a l o r p u b lic la w c o n tex t an d is ra re lyim p lica ted in p riv a te c iv il d is p u te s .- 15-

N o one di s put es thatJ acks on and G r eatB as i n C om pani es have pe r s onal s t akes i n thes e pr i vat e contr actual di s put es orthatthe al l eged i nj ur i es w er e t o them, as o p p o se d to o th e r p a rties . T h e d istric t co u rt m e re lyc o n c lu d e d th e y h a d fa iled to sh o w d isp u ted fa c ts c o n c e rn in g th e ir a lleg e d lo ss e s— a d e ter m in a tio n m o re p ro p e rly under s t ood as a fa i l ur e t o m eetR ul e 56’ s r equi r ementthatcontr over t ed mat er i al fac t s ar e nec es s ar y i n or dert o pr ocee d t o tr i al . C ons equentl y , al though J acks on a n d G re a t B a sin C o m p a n ies m a y h a v e sta n d in g to p u rsu e c laim s in fe d e ra l co u rt, thei rcl ai m s m us ts t i l l w i ths t and ana l y s i s underthe tr adi t i onal s um m ar y j udgm ent sta n d a rd s. T h e sta te la w c laim s d o n o t m e e t th is te st. 2. Sum m ar y Judgment W hen a pa r t y m oves fors um m ar y j udgm ent , i tw i l l be gr ant ed i f “the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogether w i th the affi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fa c ta n d th a tth e mo v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro fl a w. ” F e d . R. C i v. P. 56( c) . Pl ai nt i ffs s eeki ng t o over come a m ot i on fors um m ar y j udgm entm ay not“r es ton m er e al l egati ons ” i n thei rcompl ai ntbutm us t“s etfor th sp e c ifi c fa c ts sh o w in g th a t th e re is a g e n u in e iss u e fo r tria l.” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (e ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). H e re , the re c o rd c o n c lu siv e lye sta b lish e s th a t Ja c k so n a n d G re a t B a sin C o m p a n ies d id n o t su ffe r th e inju rie s th e y a lleg e d . W ith o u t th is e ss e n tial e lem e n t, eac h of thei rcl ai m s nece s s ar i l y fai l s , and s um m ar y j udgm entw as pr oper l y ent er ed. a. Jacks on- 16-

Jac k so n h as b ase d all h is ap p ea led s tat e law claim s (frau d , p rom issory e sto p p e l, an d n e g lig e n t m isre p re se n tatio n ) o n th e a lleg e d lo ss th a t re su lted fro m h is in v e stm e n t in G re a t B a sin N e b ra sk a . Ja c k so n c re a ted th is c o rp o ra te e n tity to pur chas e a de al er s hi p i n N ebr as ka, forw hi ch he pa i d a $400, 000 depos i tfors t ock in G re a t B a sin N e b ra sk a . Ja c k so n a lleg e s th a t, after d isc o v e rin g th e in v e stm e n t d id n o t in c lu d e e v e ry th in g o rig in a llya n ticip a ted , h e w o u ld h a v e re sc in d e d h is d e p o sit underthe pur chas e agr eement . H e cl ai m s thatbas ed on as s ur ance s fr om V ol vo, he chos e t o go for w ar d w i th the agr eementand thus gave up hi s r i ghtt o the r etur n of h is $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 d e p o sit. H av ing tho rou g h lyex am ined the p arti es’ a rgu m en ts an d ac co m p an y ing rec o rd evi dence , w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcour tthatJ acks on has notdemonstr at ed a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o hi s al l eged da m ages . I n the s um m ar y j udgm ent p roc ee d ing s, V o lvo arg u ed Jac k so n ’s i n v estm en t actua ll yea rne d h im a p rofit . In par t i cul ar , V ol vo poi nt ed out , and J acks on conce ded, thatther e w as no evi dence of an i nves t m enti n G r eatB as i n N ebr as ka bey ond the $400, 000 depos i t . B ut J acks on’ s i nves t m entent i t l ed hi m t o ow ner s hi p of one hundr ed per centof G r eat B asin N eb rask a’s stoc k , o f w h ich h e su b seq u en tl y so ld tw o thir d s to o ther inv esto rs fo r $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 a n d e x c h a n g e d th e re m a in in g th ird fo r sh a re s in G re a t B a sin C om pani es . B as ed on thi s r ecor d evi dence , the di s tr i ctcour tconcl uded that J acks on s uffe r ed no i nj ur y i n fac t . T o the contr ar y , hi s i nves t m entr es ul t ed i n a net gain of at l east$6 00 , 00 0, i nst ead o f a l oss.- 17-

O n a p p e a l, Ja c k so n d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th is fin d in g b y th e d istric t co u rt. H is o p e n in g b rie ffo c u se s o n th e $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 in v e stm e n t an d o n h is d e c isio n to g iv e u p h is r i ghtt o r es ci nd the agr eement , buthe fa i l s t o addr es s the $1, 000, 000 cas h and add i t i on al st ock he sub sequen t l y recei ved . H i s r eplybri ef ad dress es ( for the fir st tim e ) th e fin d in g s is su e d b y th e d istric t co u rt. H e c o n c e d e s h e e x c h a n g e d sto c k in G r eatB as i n N ebr as ka fors t ock i n G r eatB as i n C om pani es butdoes not acknow l edge the s har es thathe s ol d. I ns t ead, J acks on s paw ns a new theor y — that hi s al l eged l os s i s bas ed on s om e undi s cl os ed amountby w hi ch hi s s t ock dec r eas ed i n val ue s ubs equentt o hi s i nves t m ent . I ti s uncl earw hetherhe i s r efe rr i ng t o s t ock he pr evi ous l y ow ned i n G r eatB as i n N ebr as ka ors t ock he s ubs equentl y r ece i ved fro m G re a t B a sin C o m p a n ies . Ifth e fo rm e r, th e fa c ts d o n o t su p p o rt h is c laim beca us e he s ol d par tof hi s i nt er es tata hi gherpr i ce than he pa i d. I f the l att er , the decr eas e i n val ue w oul d be i rr el evantbeca us e, even i f the s t ock he r ece i ved i n tr ade w a s w o rth les s, h e w o u ld still h a v e m a d e a $ 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 g a in o n th e in v e stm e n t in G r eatB as i n N ebr as ka, w hi ch he a l l eges he w oul d have r es ci nded. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude J acks on has fai l ed t o demonstr at e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m aterial fa ct w ith reg ard to h is al lege d loss a n d V o lvo is en ti tl ed to su m m ary ju d g m e n t o n th e s e c la im s . b. G reatB as i n C om pani es S i m i l arl y , G reatB asi n C om pan i es’ prom i ssor y est op pel cl ai m requi res a sh o w in g o fd isp u ted fa c ts re latin g to its a lleg e d e c o n o m ic h a rm . G re a t B a sin- 18-

C om pani es cl ai m s V ol vo pr om i s ed t o pur chas e the N ebr as ka dea l er s hi p butthen fai l ed t o do s o. A s a r es ul tof G r eatB as i n C om pani es ’ conti nued hol di ng of the d e a le rs h ip , it in c u rr e d lo s s in th e fo rm o fa n in c re a s e d in te r- c o m p a n y lo a n b a la n c e . A ccor di ng t o G r eatB as i n C om pani es , i tpur chas ed G r eatB as i n N ebr as ka on J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 0 , a n d re lin q u is h e d it s ix m o n th s la te r, o n D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 0 . A ccor di ng t o the r ecor d, the r el evantm onthl y i nt er - company l oan bal ance s w er e as fo llo w s: J une 2000 $6, 582, 853. 10 J ul y 2000 $6, 222, 048. 96 D ece m ber 2000 $6, 545, 871. 24 A pl t . A pp. at1018. I n i t s br i efs , G r eatB as i n C om pani es as s er t s thatthe fi gur es for J une and J ul y r epr es ent ed the bal ance s atthe begi nni ng of ea ch mont h butthatthe fi gur e forD ece m berr epr es ent ed the bal ance atthe end of the mont h. T hus , G r eat B as i n C om pani es cl ai m s the r ecor ded J ul y bal ance , $6, 222, 048. 96, r epr es ent ed the bal ance on J ul y 1, w hi ch mostcl os el y al i gns w i th the dat e theypur chas ed the s t ock, J une 30. G r eatB as i n C om pani es al s o al l eges , how ever , the D ece m ber bal ance , $6, 545, 871. 24, r epr es ent s the bal ance as of D ece m ber31, w hi ch w as the dat e i tr el i nqui s hed the s t ock. T hus , i tconcl udes , the r ecor d s how s an i ncr eas ed l oan bal ance of $323, 822. 28. In a d d iti o n to p re se n tin g a n in c o n sis ten t m e th o d o fin ter p re tatio n , G re a t B a sin C o m p a n ies ’ a rg u m e n t co n tra d icts its o w n tes tim o n y o n th e su bjec t. A c c o rd in g to the depos i t i on t es t i m ony of A l V anl eew en, G r eatB as i n C om pani es ’ chi ef fi nanci al- 19-

offi cer , the number s r epr es entthe l oan bal ance as of m onth end. T hus , the amount l i s t ed underJ une 2000 i s the bal ance as of the dat e G r eatB as i n C om pani es ac q u ir ed the N eb rask a d ea lership o n Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 0 . C alcu lat ing the n u m b ers corr ectl y , the l oan bal ance on J une 30, 2000 ( the dayG r eatB as i n C om pani es acqui r ed s t ock i n the N ebr as ka dea l er s hi p) w as $6, 582, 853. 10. T he l oan bal ance on D ece m ber31, 2000 ( the dat e G r eatB as i n C om pani es r el i nqui s hed i t s s t ock) w as $6, 545, 871. 24. B a se d o n M r. V a n lee w e n ’s te stim o n y , the a m o u n t G re a t B a sin C o m p a n i e s o w e d a c tu a l l y decreas edb y $ 3 6 ,9 8 1 .8 6 d u ri n g th e re le v a n t p e ri o d . A cc o rdin g ly , G rea t B asin C o m p an ies ca n n o t sho w that itincu rred loss in the fo rm o fin c re a se d d e b t. S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s th e re fo re p ro p e r b e c a u se G re a t B a sin Co mp a n i e s c a n s h o w n o d a ma g e s u n d e ri t s p r o mi s s o r y e s t o p p e l c l a i m. A ccor di ngl y , w hi l e w e appl y a di ffe r entl egal fr amew ork than the di s tr i ct c o u r t , we a ffi r m th e r e s u l tr e a c h e d b e l o w. I I I . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i ons di s pos i ng of the above cl ai m s by J acks on and G r eatB as i n C om pani es agai ns tV ol vo.