### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Octob er 1 2, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 05- 1178 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00701 -CV -CC- 1 HOWARD LITSKY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us G.I. APPAREL, INC., D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1235 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00701 -CV -CC- 1 HOWARD LITSKY, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us G.I. APPAREL, INC., De fendant-Appellee.2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 12, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BA RKE T T a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: A ft er asix -d ay be nc h tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d f ina l j udgm en t i n f

av or of H ow ar d L its ky

in his law sui t, bas ed

on d ive rs ity

j ur isd ic tio n, 28 U
. S. C. § 13 32, ag ai nst G
. I. Appare l, I nc . ( “ G I” ), a lle gin g c la im s f or br ea chof

c ontra ct a nd f ra ud,
co ntr ar y to G eo rg ialaw . I n th es e co nsol ida te d a ppe al s, ( 1) G I, am aj or

sup pli er of im pr int ed T -s hirts and s ports a

ppare l, a sse rt s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by a w ar din g L its ky da m ag es ba se d on quantu m m er uit an d stat

uto ry at tor

ne y s’ f ee s, pur suant t o O. C.G .A . § 13-6-11; and (2) L itsky c h al l enges the district court’ s failure to aw ard him addition al dam ages for bre ach of contrac t based on t h e p arties’ “ Atlantika” tra ns act io n. O n a ppe al f oll ow ing abe nc h tr ia l, w e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion s of la w de nov o, a nd i ts f

ind ing s of

f ac t f or c le ar er ro r. S ee A
. I. G
. U ru guay

Co m pa nia de S eg ur os, S
. A
. v. A A A Co ope r T ransp. , 334 F. 3d 9 97, 100 3 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3) ( ci tin gWe GRANT L itsky ’s Motion in 05-12351 to Adop t GI’s R ec o rd Excerpts in 05-11788. 1 We D EN Y L its ky ’s Mo tio n in 05 -1 17 88 fo r F ri vo lou s App e a l. In the par ties’ pretria l submissions, submitted pursuant to the district c ourt’s Pretrial Or der, 2 L itsky enumer ated 100 items of doc umentary or phy sical evide nce to b e t en d ere d at trial, and G I lis te d a no the r 1 0 it e ms, fo ur

of wh ic h w e re de sc ri be d a s c omp os ite e xhibi ts.

3 Mi Tek Hol di ng s, Inc. v. Arce Eng ’g Co ., 89 F.3 d 15 48 , 15 54 (1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 96 )). A f t e r t h o r o u g h r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. 1 T he pa rt ie s are f

am iliar with th e unde rl y ing pr oc ee din gs and w e onl y
sum m ar iz e the r el ev an t f

ac ts he re . L its ky sue d G I, unde r G eo rg ia la w , fo r br ea chof
co ntr ac t an d fr au d ba se d on G I’ s fa ilure to pa y L its ky co m m iss ion s fo r his br oke ra ge services, which in cluded taking GI ’ s orders for certain m anufactured goods and th en loc at ing tho se goo ds, or the ne ce ssary

c om pone nts f or the m anuf

ac tu re of the requested good s, in the m arke tplace. The lawsuit concerned com m issio ns on th ree pre-em ploy m ent transactions between L itskyand GI -- Atlantika, Roochi, and Haiti --
as we ll as recover

y pursuant to an em

ploy m ent agreem ent that was ne v er
m em or ia li zed
. A t the be nc h tr ia l, the dis tr ic t co urt co nsi de re d a nd w ei ghe d th e te sti m ony of 14 wi tn es se s an d re vi ewed ex te ns iv e d oc um en ta ry ev id en ce. The dis tr ic t c our t f ound 2 L its ky ’ s te sti m ony

about the te rm s of

both th e pr e- em

pl oy m en t a gr ee m en t and the oral em ploy m ent agreem ent m ore cr edible than t h e testi m ony presented by

GI , includi ng that of Anthony Prisco, the Pre sident and s ole shareholder of G I. T he court4

determ ined that because Litsky p ro vided “ a significant am ount of value and other subs ta nt ia l be ne fi ts b othin the pr es en t and i n th e fu tur e, ” L its ky w as e nti tle d to
re co ve r und er Geo rgialaw ba se d onqua si- co ntr ac t, quantu m m er uit , a nd u nj ust enrichm ent. I n calculatin g t h e amo unt of dam ages, the c ourt noted th at G I “ never of fe re d a ny pr oba tiv e, cr ed ibl e, or pe rs ua siv e evi de nc e w ithr es pe ct to the m iti ga tio n of thi s a m ount

in an y m an ne r. ” T he c ourt f

ur the r fo und tha t G I en ga ge d in“ ba d f ai th,
w as stu bbor nly li tig iou s, a nd ca

use d [L its ky ] unn ec es sa ry tr oubl e an d e xpe nse , ” thu s
w ar ranti ng an a w ar d of

sta tut or y a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s to L its ky
. T his appe al f oll ow ed
. First, Litsky

ch a l l enges the district court’ s decision, after allowing for re covery of ac om m iss ionf or the Ro oc hi tr an sa ct ion , to de ny re co ve ry fo r co m m iss ion s onthe Hait i an d At la nt ik a tr an sa ct io ns . In th e Ro oc hi tra ns act io n, u nl ik e in th e o th er t wo tr an sa ct ion s, G I ne ve r too k po sse ssi on of th e good s, w hic h, in the c as e of the H ai ti transaction, w ere non-conform ing to the purchase order. T he district court rej ected Litsky ’ s argum ent that his procurem ent of a “ ready , w illing , and able” p u rchaser sufficed for recovery , wher e there wa s no deliv ery of the goods
. The district court concluded th at the pre-e m ploy m ent agree m en t required consumm ation of the sale, which never occ urred for the Atlantika and Ha iti transactions. Based o n our review of the r ec or d a nd c onsi de ra tio n of the pa rt ie s’ ar gum en ts, w e fi nd no cle ar e rr or in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ac tua l f ind ing s onthi s po int , no r can we di sc er n le ga l e rr or

in theGiven the numer ous terms o n wh i ch the pa rties had no a g ree ment, the district court 3 corr ectly found that t h er e wa s no meetingof the minds under G eorg ia law a nd, thus, no formal contra ct of e mploy

ment. The unre solved terms included, a mong othe rs, the followingessential terms: (1) whe ther L itsky was a n employ ee or

an independent contra ctor; (2) whether the contra ct was indef inite as to its duration; (3) the structure , terms, and amount of L itsky ’s bonus; and (4) the g rounds for te rmination. I n sho rt , we a re unpe rsuade d by

GI ’s var ious challeng es to the district c ourt ’s c on c lus ion that the re wa s no e xpre ss c on tr a c t of e mpl oy me nt he re and thu s L it sk y cou ld rec over pur suant to quantum meruit. Cf. Kwickie/F lash Foods, Inc. v. L akeside Petroleum, Inc., 541 S.E.2d 699, 700 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (h o lding that ne ither quantum meruit nor unjust enr ichment a llo w r e c ov e ry

wh e re the re is a

n e xpre ss c on tr a c t) . B e c a us e we fi nd

that r e c ov e ry

purs ua nt t o 5 dis tr ic t c ourt’s an al y sis of L its ky ’ s r igh ts unde r the pr e- em plo ym en t arr an ge m en t be tw ee n th e pa rt ie s and i ts c onc lus iontha t L its ky c oul d no t re co ve r his c om m iss ion fo r the unc onsu m

m at ed A tlanti kaa nd H ai ti tr an sa ct ion s. Tu rn i n g t o GI ’s ar g u m en t s , we l i k ew i s e f i n dn o er ro r i n t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s j udgm en t in favor of L its ky fo r da m ag es pur suant to quantu m m er uit
. U nde r G eo rg ia law, wher e, as here, no express contract ex i s t s b et we en the parties, a party m ay
recover under the theory of liability for quantu m m eruit, which requires the plaintiff to e stablish the following e lem ents: ( 1) the provider per form ed as ag en t services
va lua ble to the r ec ipi en t; (2 ) ei the r at the r eque st o f the reci pie nt o r know ing ly
ac ce pte d by

the re ci pie nt; (3 ) the re ci pie nt’ s re ce ipt of w hic h w ith out c om pe nsa tin g the pr ovi de r w oul d be un j ust ; and ( 4) the pr ovi de r ha d a n e xpe ct at ionof
com pensation at the tim e of re nditi on of services. See Artrac Corp. v. Austin Kelley A dve rt isi ng, I nc . , 399 S
. E
. 2d 5 29, 533 -3 4 ( G a. Ct
. App. 199 0) (in te rn al quo ta tio n
m ar ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ); se e al so O
. C. G
. A
. § 9- 2- 7. 3quantum meruit was proper , we need not, and do not, rea ch the issue of whether L itsky could re cover un de r t he the or y of un jus t e nr ic hme nt. We also find no err or i n the di strict court’s c omputation of the awa rd, which w as base d on 4 the c os t sa

ving s a c hie ve d thro ug h L its ky ’s e ff or ts o n G I ’s be ha lf

. T he me a sure of

dama g e s in qu antum me ru it i s th e re a so na ble va lue of the se rv ic e s re nd e re d to the re c ipi e nt. Ce ntr e Poi nte I nv s. v. Fr ank M
. Darby

Co., 549 S.E.2d 435, 439 (Ga. Ct. Ap. 2001); see a lso Za mpatti v. Tradeba

nk Int’l Fra nchising C o rp . , 5 0 8 S .E.2d 750, 757 (Ga . Ct. App. 1998) (providingthat measure of damag es is “base d upon the benefit confe rre d upon the def endant a nd not upon the cost to rende r the service of cost of the g oods (citation om itted)). In Geor g ia, t he “rea sonable va lue” to the r ecipient is a question for the f

inder of f act to re solve. See Watson v. Sierra Contra cting Corp., 485 S.E.2d 56 3, 57 0 ( Ga . Ct . App . 1 99 7) (“ Th e va lue of se rv ic e s f

ro m th e pe rs pe c tiv e of

the re c ipi e nt i s uniquely that of opinion and is for jury deter mination as to value, if any .”). A s the district court put i t , GI of fe re d n o ev i d en ce t o re b u t th e fi gure L i t s ky re qu es t ed , wh i ch wa s b as edo nL i t s ky ’s s av i n gs to G I -- or the benef

it GI rea ped from L itsky ’s work -- for g oods rec eived from t h e f ollowing suppliers, all of whom wer e found throug h L itsky : A lsty le ($371,597); Shavin Textil es ($41,781) ; Inlink ($86,436); Ameritec h ($48,900); Ne twork Sourcing($46,976); The Gr ee ne Company 6 T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt m ad e t h e f o l l o wi n g fi n d i n g s o f f

ac tp er t ai n i n g t o Li t s ky’ s
re co ve ry of quantu m m er uit da m ag es : [T ] he Co urt c onc lud es tha t P la int if f co nf er re d su bst an tia l e co nom ic be ne fi ts t o D ef

en da nt f or w hic h P la int if

f ex pe ct ed

to be c om

pe nsa te d, am ount ing to anim

pli ed pr om ise to pa y

a t the ti m e he c onf

er re d th e ec onom ic an d ot he r subs ta nti al be ne fi ts. T he c onf er re d e co nom ic be ne fi ts c onsi ste d of

va lue D ef

en da nt h as a lr ea dy

r ec ei ve d and va lue De fe n d an twi l l re ce i v e i n t h e f u tu re as a d i r e c t re s u l to f P l ai n t i ff ’s efforts on De fendant’ s behalf. The e conom ic and other subst antial be ne fi ts i nc lud e, but

a re not li m ite d to , m one y

D ef en dant s av ed

due to Pl ai nti ff ’ s c ont ac ts, P la int if

f’ s e duc at ing D ef

en da nt o n how to do c ost an al y sis , a nd P la int if

f’ s e xpos ing D ef

en da nt to his s ubst an tia l bu sin es s co nt act s an d s ou rces . O n th is r ec or d, w e ar e sa tis fi ed the e vid en ce , w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt c ar ef ull y
co n s i d er ed o v er t h e co u rs e o f a s i x -d ay b en ch t ri al , f u l l y s up p o rt s t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s fact ua l fi nd in gs , whi ch m eet th e el em en ts of q ua nt um m eru it un de r Geo rg ia law. 4($377,520); and Ca sual Knit ($19,424). Simply put, the rec ord supports the amount aw arde d. 7 Fi na lly , G I ch al le nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s aw ar d of sta tut or y a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s, pur suant t o O
. C. G
. A
. § 13 -6 -1 1, w hic h pr ovi de s th e fo llo w ing , int er al ia: “ [t ] he
ex pe nse s of

li tig at ionge ne ra lly

sha ll not be a llo w ed

a s apa rt of the dam ag es ; bu t .

. . wher e the defe ndant has acted in bad faith, has been stubbo rnly litigio us, or has caused the plaintiff unnecessary trouble and e xpense, the j ury m ay allow them .” In supp ort of it s aw ar d, the dis tr ic t cour t foun d that G I ac te d inba d f ai th, w as stu

bbor nly litigio us, and caused L itskyunnecessary trouble and expens e, thus warr ant i ng an award of s ta tu to ry

fees
. GI ’ s argum ent that the existence of a bona fide con troversy precluded the fee
aw ar d is m isp la ce d. Whil e it is tru e G eo rg iac ourts h av e int er pr et ed § 13 -6 -1 1 no t t o apply wher e bad faith is not at issue and th e fe e aw ard is based s o l el y on stub born litigio usness or the causing of unnecessary trouble and expens e, this lim itation d oes not appl y he re be ca

use the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpr es sly m ad e a fi ndi ng o f ba d f

ai th, w hic h, al one , sup ports the a w ar d. S ee D an ie l v. S m ith , 597 S
. E
. 2d 4 32, 436 (G a. Ct
. App. 2004 )( “ Whe n ba d f

ai th i s no t an is sue a nd the onl y as se rt ed ba sis f or ar ec ove ry

of at tor ne y f ee s is e ith er

stu bbor n li tig iou sne ss o r th e c a

u sin g of unn ec es sa ry

tr oubl e an d
ex pe nse , the re is not

a ny e vid en ce to supp ort an aw ar d pu rs ua nt t o O CG A § 13 -6 -1 1 i f ab o n af i d e c o n t r o v e r s y

c l e a r l y e x i s t s b e t w e e n t h e p a rt i e s . ” ( i n t e rn a l quo ta tio nThe district cour t’s finding of bad f

aith also supports not a

pportioning the fe e aw ard to fe es 5 attributable to claims on which L itsky preva iled. See Crocke r v. Stevens, 435 S.E.2d 690, 698 (Ga
. Ct. App. 1993) (holding that § 13-6-11 fee awa rd based on bad fa ith is not apportioned be tween f ees attributable to suc cessf

ul c laims a

nd fee s attributable to losing claims (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted)). 8 m ar ks and c ita tio n om itt ed )) ; cf
. Mars ha ll v. K ing & Mor ge nst er n, 613 S
. E
. 2d 7 , 13 (Ga. C t
. A p p . 20 05 )(“ Whe n a bo na fid e co nt ro ve rs y ex is ts be twee n t he pa rti es , a plaintiff cannot cite stubb orn litigi ousn ess or unnecessary trouble and expens e as pr ope r gr ound s f

or a w ar din g a tto rn ey

f ee s. ”)
. G ive n th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing of 5 ba d f ai th, the e xc ep tio n G I ur ge s us to ap ply sim ply is not im pli ca te d. AFFIRMED.