FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 3, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16131 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -001 04 -C V -H L M -4 I . M I C H A E L D Y C I O , P l ai nt i ffC ou nt er -D ef

endant A p p e lla n t, v ersu s P E A C H S T A T E L A B S , I N C ., D ef endant C ou nt er -C l ai m ant A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 3, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Peach State originally filed a c ounter c laim. By agreement of the pa

rties, the cour

t 1 vo luntari ly

dis mis se d th ec ounter c laim, a s w e ll a s o neof thec ounts in D yc io’ s c omp laint . 2 I. M i chae l D yc i o app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s ordergrant i ng sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of P ea ch S t at e L abs, Inc, and d enyi ng hi s m ot i on for par t i al s u mma r y j u d g me n t . A f t e ra th o r o u g h r e v i e w o f th e r e c o r d , w e a f

f i r m. D yc i o fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai nstP ea ch S t at e L abs, Inc. (“ P ea ch S t at e” ) al l egi ng brea ch of cont ra ct , fr aud, and u nj ustenri chm enti n con nect i on w i th an o ra l c ontr a c tt o s e l l P e a c h S t a t e ’ s pr oduc t s , i nc l udi ng N ova c A - C L . A f t e rD y c i o m a de s uc h s a l e s f

r om 1996 thr ough 2003, P e a c h S t a t e not i f i e d D y c i o tha the w oul d no l onge rbe c om pe ns a t e d f orthe s e s a l e s . D y c i o r e que s t e d c om pe ns a t or y a nd pu ni t i ve dam ages , as w el l as att orney’ s f ee s a nd decl ar at ory r el i ef . P e a c h S ta te a n s w e r e d th e c o m p la in t, a n d m o v e d f o rs u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. 1 A cc ordi ng t o P ea ch S t at e, oral cont ra ct s f or an i nd ef

i ni t e per i od w er e t erm i nabl e a t w ill a n d u n e n f

o r c e a b le a n d th e c la im s w e r e b a r r e d b y th e S ta tu te o f F r a u d s . D y c io al so m o v ed fo r su m m ary j u d g m en to n th e b reach -o f-co n tractcl ai m an d th e req u est f o rd e c la r a to r y ju d g m e n t. T he courtgrant ed P ea ch S t at e’ s m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entand d eni ed D y c i o’ s m ot i on f

orpa r t i a l s um m a r y j udgm e nt , c onc l udi ng tha ta n or a l a gr e e m e nt fo r a n in d ef

in it e p er io d o f tim e w as an u n en fo rc ea b le co n trac t an d D yc io ’s em pl oym entw as t erm i nabl e a tw i l l . T he courtal so foun d t hat , even i f the cont ra ctThe pre cedent to which Dycio cites is Miami Valley Fr uit Far ms, Inc. v. Southern 2 Orc ha rd Supply, Inc ., 44 8 S. E. 2d

48 2 ( Ga . Ct . App . 1 99 4) . That c a se , h ow e ver, is ina pp lic a ble to t hefac ts o f t

heins tant c a se , a s th eperi od of e mpl oy me nt in M iami V a lley

wa s n ot ind e finit e and could bedefine d by

the ec onomic life of the trees. I n contra st, in the instant case, there wa s no such def

ining period of time. 3 w a s f ora de f i ni t e t i m e , i tw a s ba r r e d by the S t a tut e of F r a uds be c a us e i tha d not b e e n r e d u c e d to w r itin g , a n d th a t D y c io ’s p a s t p e r f o r m a n c e w a s n o t s u f

f ic ie n t to rem o v e th e ag reem en tfro m th e S t atu t e o f F rau d s. A d d ressi n g th e frau d an d u n j u st e nr i c hm e ntc l a i m s , the c our tde t e r m i ne d tha tor a l pr om i s e s w e r e une nf or c e a bl e by a t - w i l l e m pl oy e e s a nd c oul d notbe the ba s i s f ora f r a ud orothe rt or tc l a i m , a nd a ny cl ai m of un

j ustenri chm entw as spec ul at i ve. D yc i o n ow appeal s, al l egi ng thatthe courterre d b y gra nt i ng sum m ary ju d g m e n t in f

a v o ro f P e a c h S ta te a n d b y ig n o r in g p r e c e d e n t. 2 W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e ntde novo, vi e w i ng the evi dence i n t he l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o t he party opp osi ng the m ot i on . S krt i ch
v . T h o r to n , 2 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A fter a r ev iew , w e a ff

irm fo r th e r ea so n s g iv en in th e d istrict co u rt’s thor ough or de rda t e d O c t obe r27, 2006. AF F I R ME D.