FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 2, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 11 63 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 01 47 5- CV-ORL-1 8- DAB DEW SEVEN, L .L.C., a Fl or id a li m it edli ab il ity co m pa ny, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us BIG LOTS STORES, INC., A for ei gn co rp or at io n f.k .a. Co ns ol id at ed St or es Co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di stric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 2, 2 00 9) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Thi s ca se ari se s fr om Pla in ti ff’s act io n fo r de cl arat ory jud gm en t und er Fl or id a St atut e § 86 .02 1. Pl ai nt iff see ks a de te rm in at io n o f it s ri gh ts un de r a 1 97 3 Leas e Agr eem en t (“ Leas e”) anda 19 97 Leas e Ext en si on an d M od ifi cat io n Agr eem en t (“ Mo di fic at io n” ). Pla in ti ff i s the lan dl or d; Defen da ntis th e te na nt . The di stric t co urt g ran te d Def en da nt ’s m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, fi nd in g tha t Pl ai nt iff fai le d t o ra is e a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factas t o the parti es ’ in te ntin
m ak in g the Mo di fic at io n. Bec au se th is is a di ve rs ity cas e, Fl or id a la w app li es . Davi s v . Nat’l Me d. Ent er., In c., 25 3 F .3d13 14 , 13 19 n.6 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). W e rev ie w th e tr ia l co urt’s in te rp ret at io n o f a co ntractde no vo . Brag g v . Bil l HeardCh ev ro le t, In c., 37 4 F .3d 10 60 , 10 65 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). W e wil l g ran t s umm ary jud gm en t i f th ere i s n o ge nu in e is su e as to an y

m at eri al factan d the m ov in g p arty is en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t as a m atte r of

law. Ce lo te x C or

p. v . Catret t, 4 77 U.S. 31 7, 3 22 , 10 6 S
. Ct . 25 48 , 25 52 (19 86 ) (quo ti ng Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c)) . In a c as e in vo lv in g c on tra ct in te rp ret at io n, s umm ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te “ whe n the ag reem en t i s t ot al ly
un am bi gu ou s, o r whe n any am bi gu ity m ay be res ol ve d b y

ap pl y in g the rul es of
co ns tru ct io n t o s itua ti on s i n wh ic h the paro l ev id en ce o f th e p art ie s’ in te nt io ns is
2un di sp ut edor n on -ex is te nt .” LandO’ Sun R eal ty v. REW JB Gas In vs ., 68 5 S o. 2 d

87 0, 8 72 n.3 (Fl a. 3dDCA 19 96 ). W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t an y am bi gu ity inth e co nt ractis pa te nt , an d the refo re ex tri ns ic ev id en ce i s i na dm is si bl e to res ol ve th e d is pu te . See Cro wn Mg m t. Co rp . v. Go odm an , 45 2 S o. 2 d 4 9, 5 2 (F la . 2dDCA 19 84 ). W itho utus in g pa ro l ev id en ce, we res ol ve th is di sp ut e b y lo ok in g t o the lan gu ag e o f th e co nt ract , whi ch“ is th e b es t p os si bl e ev id en ce o f th e in te ntan d m ean in g o f th e p art ie s.” Rep ub li c Servs ., Inc . v. Cal ab res e, 93 9 S o. 2 d 2 25 , 22 6 (F la . 5th DCA 2 00 6)
. Sect io n 2 2 o f th e Leas e p ro vi de s i n re le vantpart: Ten an t i s g iv enth e o pt io n, i f Ten an t i s n otinde fau ltun de r th e te rm s of th is lea se , to ren ew th is lea se forfiv e su cces si ve fiv e y ear p eri od s on th e sa m e te rm s an d c on di ti on s h erei n c on ta in ed , pro vi de d Ten an t gi ve s the Land lo rdsi x m on th s n ot ic e o f it s el ect io n t o e xe rci se su ch op ti onpri orto an d [s ic ] en d o f th e te rm he reo f orex te nd edterm . DE 2, Ex. A, p. 3 7. Th e Mo di fic at io n p ro vi de s, i n re le va ntpart: Ten an t h ereb y

ex erci se s i ts fir stfiv e (5 ) y ear r en ewal op ti on to ex te nd th e te rm of the Leas e as pro vi de d fo r inSect io n 2 2 o f th e Leas e. The fir stfiv e (5 ) y ear r en ewal op ti on sh al l co m m en ce Oct ob er 1 , 19 98 an d e xp ire s Se pt em

be r 30 , 20 03 . All t erm s an d c on di ti on s s pe ci fic in th e Leas e sh al l re m ai n the same . . . Ten an t i s h ereb y

gra nt edon e (1 ) ad di ti on al fiv e (5 ) y ear r en ewal op ti onun de r th e sa m e te rm s an d c on di ti on s s pe ci fie d i n the Leas e. Sai d o pt io n s ha ll be ex erci sabl e upo n wri tt enno ti ce t o Lan dl or d a t le as e [s ic ] si x (6 ) m on th s p rio r to th e expi rat io n d at e o f th e te rm as ex te nd edhe rei n; 3DE 2, Ex. C, p . 50 . The m od ifi cat io n a ls o p ro vi de s tha t “ [e]xce ptas h erei n

am en de d andm od ifi ed , all othe r te rm s, co nd it io ns , cov en an ts an d a gr eem en ts th ereo f are he reb y

in co rp or at edby referen ce an d s ha ll co nt ro l an d g ov ern .” Id . at 51
. Pl ai nt iff

arg ue s tha t the Mo di fic at io n’s g ran t o f “ on e (1 ) ad di ti on al fiv e (5 ) y ear r en ewal op ti on ” ex ti ng ui sh edan d re pl acedth e fo urrem ai ni ng fiv e y ear
ren ewal op ti on s g ran te d i n the ori gi na l Lea se . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt th at , app lying th e ru le s o f co ns tru ct io n, thi s i s n otth e cas e. Und er Fl or id a la w,

“ anex pr es s p ro vi si on ina co ntractcan no t g en eral ly be v ari edby an im pl ie d o ne .” Niag ara Th erap y

Mfg . Cor p. V. Nia ga ra Cyclo Mas sa ge , Inc ., 19 6 S o. 2 d 4 74 , 47 6 (Fl a. 3dDCA 19 67 ). No l an gu ag e in th e Mo di fic at io n e xp li ci tl y ex ti ng ui sh es th e fo urren ewal term

op ti on s tha t re m ai n u nd er the ex pr es s p ro vi si on of the Leas e. In st ead , th e Mo di fic at io n g ran ts on e ad di ti on al lea se ex te ns io n wi th ou t s pe ci fy in g whe th er tha t ex te ns io n i s ad di ti on al to th e o ne term ex erci se d i n the Mo di fic at io n,
orto fiv e te rm s co nt em

pl at edinth e o rig in al Leas e. Ther efo re, an y ne ga ti on of the Leas e p ro vi si on by the Mo di fic at io n p ro vi si on wou ldbe im pl ie d, an d thu s di sf av or ed
. Defen da ntarg ue s tha t the Mo di fic at io n p ro vi si onad de d asi xt h re ne wal op ti on to th e o rig in al fiv e ren ewal op ti on s p ro vi de d i n the Leas e. It i s an ot he r ru le
4of

co ntractco ns tru ct io n tha t “ [w]here [ a] con tra ctis su sc ep ti bl e to an in te rp ret at io n tha t g iv es effe ctto all of i ts pro vi si on s, the co urt s ho ul d s el ectth at in te rp ret at io n o ve r analt ern at iv e o ne th atrel ie s o n n eg at io n o f so m e o f th e
co ntractua l p ro vi si on s.” Fi sh er v . Cert ai n In te res te d Un de rwri te rs at Ll oyds Subs cri bi ng to Co ntractNo. 2 42 /9 9, 9 30 So . 2d75 6, 7 58 -5 9 (F la . 4th DCA 2 00 6)
. Inco ntras t t o the Pla in ti ff’s in te rp ret at io n, Def en da nt ’s in te rp ret at io n g iv es effe ct to all ex pr es s p ro vi si on s o f th e co nt ract , whi chin cl ud es bo th th e Leas e an d the Mo di fic at io n. The rul es of c on stru ct io n c le arl y fav orth e Defen da nt ’s in te rp ret at io n o f th e
co ntract . Becau se an y

pa te ntam

bi gu ity inth e co nt ractari si ng fro m th e Mo di fic at io n m ay

be res ol ve d i n the Defen da nt ’s fav orby app lying th e ru le s o f
co ns tru ct io n, we h ol d tha t s umm ary jud gm en t fo r th e Defen da ntis pro pe r. 1 AFFIRMED. 2

Although it is unnec essar y for us to dete rmine the unde rlying pur pose of the 1 Modification in order

to rea ch this conclusion, we agree with the district court that the e x press purpose of

the Modification bolsters the inter pretation reac hed by

the district court. Appellant’s r equest for

oral a rgument is denied. 2 5