FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT SEPT 25, 2008 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N CL ERK [ DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 07- 1482 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-009 49-CV- T- MAP MOR NING ST AR HE AL TH CARE, LL C , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant , ve rs us GREYSTONE & CO., INC. , De fendant-Appellee .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 25, 200 8) Be fo re BL A CK , CA RN E S and BA RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Mornings tar H ealthcare , L LC , a ppeals the dist rict court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent in favor of G rey stone & Co., Inc. , in Morningstar’ s breach of c ontract action against Grey stone. In 2000, Morningstar sou ght to purchase a hospital from Princeton H ospit al, Inc. , who was in bankruptcy proceedings. Morningstar needed financing for its acquisitio n and, in order to dem onstrate to the bankrup tcy j udge that Mornin gstar wa s a legitim ate purchaser, sough t from Gr ey stone a loan co m m i t m en tl et t erth at wo u l ds h o w Gr eys t o n e’s ag re emen tt o fu n dMo rn i n g s t ar ’s p u r c h a s e . M o rn i n g s t ar

r e c e i v e dal e t t e r , w h i c h b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e di n g e n e r a l t e rms the siz e of

the loan, the int er es t r at e, and a r ep ay m en t sc he dul e. S ubse que nt t o th e le tte r’ s is suanc e, how ev er , the part ie s di d no t a gr ee a s to c er ta in t er m s, and G re y sto ne did

not iss ue the loan. Mornings tar sued. Af

ter extensive discovery , G rey stone filed a summ ary j udgm en t m oti on i n whic h it arg ue d it w as not obl igate d to f

und the loan pr im ar ily be ca use ( 1) Mo rn ing star fa ile d to pr ovi de G re y sto ne w ithaw ri tte n a gr ee m en t be tw ee n M or

nin gst ar and the sur ge on who w oul d op er at e the f ac ili ty , and ( 2) Mor nin gst ar ha d no t c om

pli ed w ithF lor ida

lawgov er

nin g th e sa le of

hos pit al s and co uld not c om ple te the tr an sa ct ion . T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, f

ind ing the loan c om

m itm en t l ette r w as not

abin din g, va lid ag re em en t de m onstratin g th e part ie s’ m utu al a sse nt.3

O n a ppe al , Mo rn ing star ar gue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed be ca use ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt r

ule d sua spon te that the letter did not cons titute a bind ing cont ract an d di d no t gi ve Mo rn ing star not ic e of it s in te nt t o r

ule on the iss ue ; ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d M or nin gst ar ’ s m oti on f

or r ec onsi de ratio n; and ( 3) to the ex te nt the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe iss ue s pr es en te d by G re y sto ne in its m oti on, the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed . Mornings tar fir st asserts the district court erre d in findin g the loan com m itm ent letter did not cons titute an integrated contract evidencing th e m utual as se nt o f the part ie s a s to the e sse nti al te rm s of the c ontra ct . Mo rn ing star co nte nds G re y sto ne ne ve r ar gue d th e loan c om m itm en t l ette r w as not

ava lid c ontra ct in G re y sto ne ’ s sum

m ar y j udgm en t m oti on, and the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in sua spon te gr an tin g sum

m ar y j udgm en t onagr ound

not pr ope rl y be fo re it . W e re vie wthe gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, c onsi de ri ng a ll the ev ide nc e an d r ea sona

ble inf er en ce s th er ef

ro m in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the no nm ov in g p art y . E lli

s v . E ngland , 43 2 F .3d13 21 , 13 25 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). A lth oughdis tr ic t c ourts p oss es s th e pow er to gr an t sum

m ar y j udgm en t sua spon te , the y m ust e nsur e part ie s r ec ei ve a de quate not ic e an d are a ff or de d an op portun ity to bri ng forwardall of t he ir e vi de nc e. M ass eyv . Co ngress L ifeI

ns. Co . , 116 F . 3d 1414 , 141 7 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . B ut “ w he re ale ga l i ssu e ha s be enf ull y de ve lop ed ,4

an d th e ev ide nti ar

y r ec or d is c om

ple te , sum

m ar y j udgm en t i s e nti re ly

appr opr ia te even if no form al notice has been provided.” A rti sti c E ntm ’t , I nc . v . Ci tyof W arne r R obi ns , 331 F . 3d 1 196, 120 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ; se e als o F loo d v . Young W oman’s Christia n Ass’n of Brunswick, Ga. , I nc. , 398 F. 3d 12 61, 1267 (11t h Cir. 2005 ) (“ [A ] dis tr ic t c ourt m ay e nte r sum

m ar y j udgm en t sua spon te if the parties are given adequate no tice that they m ust present all of their evidence.” ). Mor nin gst ar r ec ei ve d a de quate not ic e an d w as a ff or de d an op portun ity

to ar gue w he the r the loan c om m itm en t l ette r de m onstrate d abin din g a gr ee m en t by Gr eys t o n e t o l o an m o n ey fo r t h e a cq u i s i t i o n o f t h e h o s p i t al . Al th o u g h Gr eys t o n e’s sum m ar y j udgm en t m oti on e m

pha siz ed Mo rn ing star’ s in ab ili ty

to sa tis fy c er ta in co ndi tio ns, G re y sto ne c le ar ly arg ue d th e le tte r w as not af ull e xpr es sio n of

the ag re em en t be ca

use it la ck ed ke y te rm s, w as not

sig ne d by

Mo rn ing star, and d id not c ont ai n am er ge r pr ovi sio n. I n f ac t, Mo rn ing star de vot ed tw o pa ge s of

it s re spon se to G re y sto ne ’ s m oti on t o arg uin g th e loan c om m itm en t l ette r w as a bin din g a gr ee m en t be tw ee n th e part ie s. Mor eo ve r, it

is inc or re ct to ch ar ac te ri ze the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng a s asua spon te gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ule d onan is sue that w as a com ponent of the argum ents m ade by both p arties. G rey stone argued the loan com m itm ent letter did not ob ligate it to fund th e loan because there we reIn its reply brief, Mor

ningsta r points to facts it argues ra ises g enuine issues of material 1 fac t relate d to the mutual assent issue that forme d the basis of the district c ourt’s ruling . Mo rn ing sta

r f a ile d to ra ise the se argume nts in i ts o pe nin gbr ie f, and argume nts ra ise d f

or the fi rs t 5 additio nal conting encies Morningstar had to m eet. Morningstar asserted the loan co m m i t m en ts et fo rt h al l m at er i al t er m s o f t h e a g re emen tan dGr eys t o n e’s pur porte d a ddi tio na l t er

m s w er e not

part of that a gr ee m en t. I n othe r w or ds, the parties disagreed as to the significance of the loan com m itm ent letter. Thus, the district court had before it the questio n of the eff ect of the loan co m m it m en t l et te r an d wh et he r itcrea te d abi nd in g a gr eem en t b et ween th e p art ie s. Re co gni zi ng M or

nin gst ar ’ s br ea chof

c ontra ct a ct ionw as im

pli ci tly pr em ise d on the le tte r be ing ava lid , int eg rate d c ontra ct r ep re se nti ng the part ie s’ m utu al a sse nt, the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound the le tte r la ck ed

the te rm s and c ont ing en ci es ty pic al ly fo und in s uc h ac om

ple x f inanc ia l a gr ee m en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed the letter sim ply spelled out th e general term s of a possibl e loan and the undi sputed ev ide nc e de m onstrate d th e part ie s di d no t i nte nd f or it to be abin din g a gr ee m en t. The district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent was proce durally proper; thu s, the c ourt di d no t e rr e ith er in gr an tin g th e sum

m ar y j udgm en t or

in de ny ing Mornings tar’ s m otion for r econsideration. Morningstar does no t argue the district court’ s conclusio n that there w as no m utual assent between the parties w as subs tanti ve ly

e rr one ous, and w e ne ed

not de ci de the iss ue . B ec au se w e af fi rm the 1time in reply are waived. Jack

son v. United States , 976 F.2d 679, 680 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 1992).

6 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t, w e al so n ee d no t a ddr es s M o rn i n g s t ar ’s al t ern at i v e a rg u m en tre g ar d i n g th e e x p l i ci tb as es fo r G re yst o n e’s original m otion for sum

m ary j udgm ent. T he district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm en t i s AF FIRMED .