### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J une 13 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1144 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-00126 -CV -2-W LS -1 LU CIU S A DK IN S JI LL ADKINS, Plaintiffs-CounterDefen da nt s- App el la nt s, ve rs us CAG LE FO OD S JV, LL C, d.b .a. Cag le -Key st on e Fo od s, De fendant-CounterClaim ant-Appellee, CAGLE’ S, INC., CAGLE’ S FARM S, INC., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 13, 200 5)2

Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, and T JO FL A T and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Judg es . KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judge: Thi s ca se in vo lv es an in te rp ret at io n o f th e Pac ke rs & St oc kyards Act, 7 U . S. C. § 19 2( a) and ( b) , w hic h pr ohi bit s li ve pou ltr y de al er s f ro m “ en ga g[ ing ] in
or us[ ing ] any

unf ai r, unj ust ly

dis cr im inator

y , or de ce pti ve pr ac tic e or

de vic e, ” or

“ m ak [i ng] or

giv [i ng] any

und ue or unr ea sona

ble pr ef er en ce or a dvanta ge to an y part ic ular pe rs on o r loc al ity in an y r es pe ct , or

sub j ec t[ ing ] any

part ic ular pe rs on o r locality to any undu e or unreasonable prej udice or disadvantag e in any respect”. T he pla int if

fs , L uc ius and J ill A dki ns, are br oil er gr ow er s un de r co ntr ac t w ith de fe ndant o pe rator s of

pou ltr y pr oc es sin g f

ac ili tie s. T he A dki ns c la im that the de fe ndants , Ca gle ’ s, I nc . ( “ Ca gle ’ s” ), Ca gle ’ s F ar m s, I nc . ( “ Ca gle ’ s F ar

m s” ), and Ca gle F oods JV , L L C ( “ Ca gle JV ”) , vio la te d f ed er al a gr ic ult

ur al statut es , com m itted state-law fraud and breac h of contract, and are liable under other
re la te d c au se s of

a ct ion
. I. T he pla int if

fs , L uc ius and J ill A dki ns, ha d be ene nga ge d inf ar m ing f or several y ears when they

decided, in late 1990 or ear ly 1991 , to growbroilerThe va rious defe ndants operate an integrate d poultry proce ssing business. The y contra ct 1 some far mers, known a s “bre eder

g rowe rs,” to ra ise hens for the express purpose of

laying e g g s. These e g g s are then hatche d at a hatcher y . Soon after the eg g s are hatche d, the youngchicks a re sent to a “br oiler g rowe r,” like the Adkins. Under the basic ter ms of a B roiler Produc tion Agre e me nt, the br oil e r gro we r s up pli e s th e c hic ke n h ou se s a nd do e s th e fa

rm wo rk ne c e ssa ry to raise the chicks, while the defe ndants supply fee d and medications. After a prede termined period, the de fenda

nts collect the grown c hickens fr om the broiler growe r and w eig h them. The broiler growe rs ar e paid a ccor ding to a formula whic h depends pr imarily on the weight of the g rown birds a

nd the weight of fee d used. The de fenda nts then slaug hter the c hickens, proc ess the me at, a nd se ll i t. To avo id c on fu sio n, and

wi th a ll d

ue re sp e c t, w e re fe r t o th e Ad kin s in div idu a lly 2 throug hout this opi nion as “L ucius” or “ J ill” as appropr iate.

3 ch ic ke ns i n or de r to d ive rs if y the ir f ar m inc om e. L uc ius m et

w ithD an ny

E iland 1 2 of Ca gle ’ s, w ho p ro vid ed

e sti m at es of

ty pic al c ost s and e xpe nse s e nc ount er ed in the busin ess, der ived from indus try avera ges and actual productio n data on oth er farm s. T he e sti m at es inc lud ed adis cl ai m er

w hic h pr ovi de d th at

the pr oj ec tio ns we re f or illustrative purpo ses onlyand not in tended as a forec ast of actual pe rf orm an ce . T he A dki ns i nde pe nde ntl y ve ri fi ed the va lid ity

of the e sti m at es and proceeded to construct four chicken hous es in 1991
. The e stim ates proved reasonably

accur ate and the operation perform ed we ll. T he Adkins constructed two ad di ti on al ho us es in 19 94 , and fou r m or e h ou se s o n a ne w farm in 19 95 . On
ea choc ca sio n, the A dki ns o bta ine d a ddi tio na l e sti m at es f ro m Ca gle JV , w hic h by that t im e w as the onl y

one of the de fe ndant e nti tie s c ondu ct ing bus ine ss w iththeCag le J V ca me into exi stence in 1993 as a joint venture be tween Ca g le’s and a nother 3 c omp any in o rd e r t o e xpand

po ult ry pr oc e ssi ngfa c ili tie s in

so uth Ge or g ia . A ll the Ad

kin s’ dealing s after

October 1993 wer e with Cag le J V. Be fore October

1993, the B roiler Produc tion Agr eeme nts were betwee n the Adkins and 4 Ca g le ’s
. 4 A dki ns. 3 By the ti m e of

the 199 4 ho use c onstru ct ion , Ca gle JVha d r es pond ed to
m arket pressures by

providin g its broil er grow ers w ith larger birds, which resulted in a reduc ti on in th e n um be r of flo ck s p er y ear f

ro m th e 1 99 1 e st im at edfig ur es . L uc ius a dm itt ed

in a de posi tio n th at

the A dki ns d id n ot s uf

fe r an y dam ag es a s a re sul t of the c hange , and tha t C ag le JV ’ s a ct ion s inm ak ing the c hange w er e not fr au dul en t. F urthe rm or e, L uc ius be lie ve d th e ne we sti m at es he r ec ei ve d be fo re the 1995 construction to be accurate and rea sonable. T he r el at ion shi p be tw ee n C ag le JV and i ts g ro w er s w as m em or ia liz ed in a 4
se ri es of Br oil er P ro duc tio n A gr ee m en ts, w hic h se t f orth the obl igatio ns o f Ca gle JVto pr ovi de the bir ds, f ee d, and m ed ic at ion s, and t o w ei gh the bir ds p ro m ptl y uponharv es t. T he a gr ee m en t a lso se t ou t the pay sc he dul e fo r the dur at ionof the
co ntr ac t. N o c ontra ct

e ve r spe ci fi ed

the spe ci fi c num

be r of bir ds t o be pla ce d in each house or the num

ber of f locks per y ear. A ll the contracts contained m erger cl au se s. In 1996, in reponse to requests from its largest custom er, Cagle JVbegan5

pla ci ng an e ve n larg er

bir d w ithit s gr ow er s. I n or de r to p re se rv e the he al th o f the bird, and for other r easons, Cagle JVdecre ased the num ber of birds placed in each hous e. T he Adkins m ade no com plaints at the tim e. T he increase in bird size
m ade up for the lowe r num ber of birds. Furtherm ore, Cagle JV ’ s paym ent per poun d in cr ea se d f

ro m 3. 95 c en ts t o 4. 8 c en ts b etw ee n 19 97 and 2 004. InMay 199 6, the G ra in I nspe ct ion , P ac ke rs and S toc ky ar d A dm ini str at ion (G IP SA ) fo und that up unt il 1995 , Ca gle JVha d us ed dif fe re nt tra ct or s to take the loaded weight and the tare w eight of chicken trailers. Cagle JVtherefor e re ca lc ulate d it s pr ior

paym en ts t o c or

re ct f or the dis cr ep an cy . C ag le JV
re im bur se d th e A dki ns and o the r farm er s w ho h ad be enund er

pa id, but did not re que st r ef

unds f ro m f ar m er s w ho h ad

be enove rp ai d. Lucius A dkin s joined the U nited Poultry Gr ower s’ Association (“ UP GA ”) i n 1 9 9 7 , an db e c a me th e U P G A p r e s i d e n ti n N o v e mb e r 1 9 9 8
. A tab o u tth e s a me tim e that L uc ius be cam e inv olv ed in the U PG A , the A dki ns a lle ge that C ag le JV be gan se ndi ng the m

poo r qua lity

bir ds t o r ai se on the ir

f ar m s. T he A dki ns a lso claim that Cagle JVsom etim es sent them poor qualityfee d for the birds or failed to s en d su ff

ic ie nt f ee d. L uc ius a sse rt s th at

e m plo y ee s of

Ca gle JVr ep eate dly thr eate ne d th at

he sho uld

do a s th e co m

pany tol d hi m or the c om pany w oul d

“ br eak” him
. T he A dki ns c la im that the se thr eats w er e m eant t o di sc our ag eIn April 2002, afte r the Adkins commenc ed this liti g ation, Cag le offe red a differ ent 5 contra ct. The ne w contra ct provided f or an a rbitration option but included a hig her r ate f or g ro we rs re g ard le ss. 6 pa rti ci pa ti on in th e UPGA. In May 1999 , C agle JV pre sented all its growers a new c ontract which providedfor higher paym ents in exchange for an agree m ent to arbitrate disputes
ar isi ng unde r the c ontra ct . T he A dki ns r ej ec te d th is p ro posa l and c ont inu ed to do busi ne ss unde r the old

c ontra ct . 5 InJun e 2001 , the A dki ns f ile d th e pr es en t a ct ionin the Mi ddl e D istri ct of G eo rg iaa ga ins t C ag le JV , Ca gle ’ s, and C ag le ’ s F ar m s. T he c om

pla int br ough t cl ai m s f or ( 1) vio la tio n of

the P ac ke rs and S toc ky ar ds A ct ( “ PS A ”) , ( 2) f

ra ud, ( 3) violatio n of the Ge orgia RICO statute, ( 4) fra udul ent indu cem ent and prom issory
es top pe l, ( 5) vio la tio n of

the A gr ic ult

ur al F ai r Pr ac tic es A ct

( “ A FP A ”) , and ( 6) br ea chof c ontra ct . I n r es pons e, Ca gle ’ s, I nc . , and C ag le ’ s F ar m s, I nc . f ile d a
m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t arg uin g, int er

a lia , that the y

ha d no t ha d de al ing s with the A dkin s since 1993 and that the Adkins’ c laim s wer e theref ore tim ebarr ed
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on. C ag le JVf ile d am oti on f

or summ ary j udgm ent on the m erits of the A dkin s’ claim s. T he district court granted Cag le JV’s m ot io n a s wel l. The Adk in s ap pe al bo th rul in gs .7 II. A. Standard of Re view W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of am oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t de
novo . Hinson v. Clinch CountyBoard of E ducation, 231 F.3d 821 , 826 (11th Cir. 2000 ). T he m ovin g party bears the initial burden of showing th at there is an ab se nc e of

age nui ne iss ue of

m at er ia l f

ac t and tha t i t i s th er ef

or e en tit le d to jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law. Ce lo te x C or

p. v . Cat ret t, 4 77 U.S. 31 7, 3 23 (19 86 ). If the m ovi ng p ar

ty m ee ts this bur de n, the non -m ovi ng p ar ty m ust sho wthe
ex is te nc e o f a g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact th atrem ai ns to be res ol ve d a t t ria l. Fi tz pa tr ic k v. Ci ty

of A tlanta , 2 F
. 3d 1 112, 111 5 ( 11th C ir
. 199 3)
. T he non m ovi ng p ar

ty m ust se t f orth s pe ci fi c fa ct s sh ow ing that the re is a ge nui ne iss ue f or tr ia l, not m er el y m ak e a sum

m ar y de nia l of the m ovant’ s a lle ga tio ns. F ed
. R. Ci v. P. 56(e). B. T he A dki ns’ Cl ai m s A ga ins t C ag le F oods JV 1. P ac ke rs a nd Stoc ky ards A ct Claim T he P SApr ohi bit s li ve pou ltr y de al er s f ro m “ en ga g[ ing ] in or

us[ ing ] any unf ai r, unj ust ly

dis cr im inator

y , or de ce pti ve pr ac tic e or

de vic e, ” or

“ m ak [i ng] or giv[ing ] any

undu e or unreasonable pref erence or advantage to any particular pe rs on o r loc al ity

in an y r es pe ct , or

sub j ec t[ ing ] any

part ic ular pe rs on o r loc al ity toWe do not impl y that these fa ctual alleg ations, if proved, w ould establish a violation of 6 the PSA . In th e pr e se nt c a se , it is s uf fi c ie nt f or us to h old

that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

wa s c or re c t in findingthat the Adkins did not prove their a lleg ations, and that the fe w fa cts they did produce we re ins uf

fi c ie nt t o ma

ke out a PSAc la im. This court re cently

held that to preva il under this provision of the Packe rs and Stockyards Act, a pla intiff must show that the defe ndant’s unfa ir, unjustly discriminatory , or dec eptive tra de prac tice either

adver sely

aff ects c ompetition or is li kely to adver sely

aff ect c ompetition. L ondon v. Fielda le Fa

rms Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL1279147, at *7 (11 Cir. 2005). The Adkins th have pr esente d no evidenc e that any of Cag le J V’s ac tiviti es had a n adver se ef

fec t on c omp e tit ion , o r w e re lik e ly to h ave su c h a

n e ff e c t. 8 an y un du e o r un reas on ab le pre jud ic e o r di sa dv an ta ge in an y res pe ct ”. 7 U.S.C. § 192(a) and (b). T he Adkins have alleged that Cagle JV violated this statute when it (1 ) pr ovi de d th em

w ithinf er ior bir ds, ( 2) pr ovi de d th em w ithinf er ior or insufficient feed, (3) im

properly we ighed bi rds they

had raised, and (4) offe red the m an un fa ir arb itr at ionc ontra ct . 6 T he re is no e vid en ce that the A dki ns r ec ei ve d asub stanti al num be r of inf er ior bir ds, m uc h le ss tha t C ag le JVint en de d to pr ovi de the m w ithpoo r qua lity bir ds. T he A dki ns d id d em onstrate that C ag le JVc oul d c hoos e to s en d bu se s of chicks to different far

m s once they

we re loaded, but thi s falls far short of a show ing that C ag le JVdis cr im inate d a ga ins t the A dki ns b y se ndi ng the m

inf er ior bir ds. U nc ontro ve rt ed

e vid en ce state s th at

f loc ks w er e onl y

se nt t o adif

fe re nt farm when the original destination far m wa s not y et rea dy

to rece ive them
. Chick qua lit y is al so a c om ple x m atte r w hic h c an not be de te rm ine d a t a

glanc e, m eanin g that i t w oul d be dif

fi cu lt to j udge the qua lity of af loc k w he n lo ad ed

ont o abus f

or9

tr an spor t. N oth ing in the r ec or d su gge sts that C ag le JVe ve r de liv er ed poo r qualitychicks to the Adkins o r any other broiler growe rs w ith any discrim inatory purpos e. N or have the A dki ns p ro duc ed e vid en ce of

spe ci fi c ins tanc es w he re Ca gle JVgave the m

ins uf fi ci en t or inf er ior f ee d. T he e vid en ce did

sug ge st tha t so m e of Cagle JV ’ s broiler far

m s would run out of fee d from tim e to tim e w hile others
rece ived too m

uch. But the A dkin s did no thing to show that they we re e ver spe ci fi ca lly

targ et ed f or ins uf fi ci en t or inf er ior f ee d. The A dkin s have also failed to establish anyillegal we ighin g practices. In the e ar lie r y ears of

the Cam ill a plant’ s op er at ion , the re w er e dis cr ep an ci es in the
w ei ghi ng p ro ce ss tha t m igh t a ff ec t the li ve w ei ght
. C ag le JVm ad e re im bur se m en t paym ents to cover all m isweighings prior to 1995 , a nd the Adkins canno t identify
an y in st an ces wher e Cag le JV m is weig he d t he ir b ird s af te r 19 95
. Beginning in 199 9, Ca gle JV off ered broiler grower s a newform of Broiler Pr oduc tio n A gr ee m en t whic h c ont ai ne d an arb itr at ionc lause . T he A dki ns a lle ge that these arbitration contracts we re unfair
. At f irst the arbitration contracts we re m ad e av ai la

ble to al l br oil er

gr ow er s, a t the ir

opt ion , w ithahig he r rate of pay f or those who accepted them
. The c ontracts wer e changed later so that all grow ers re ce ive d th e sam e pay , w itharb itr at ionsti ll at the gr ow er ’ s op tio n. T he re is10

nothin g un fa ir

or dis cr im inator

y about Ca gle JV ’ s of

fe r of ahig he r rate of

pay in consideration for arbitration. Further m ore, contrary

to the Adkins’ assertion, there is no evid ence that Ca gle JV ever “ guaranteed” the A dkin s a pay increase which the y w er e la te r “ de nie d” be ca use of the ir f ai lur e to s ignthe arb itr at ionc ontra ct . 2. F raud Claim To sustain a fra

ud claim under Ge orgia law, the plaintiff m ust sh ow (1) a fa lse r ep re se ntatio n m ad e by the de fe ndants ; ( 2) sc ie nte r, or kno w le dge of

the statem ent’ s falsity

at the tim e it w as m ade; (3) an intenti on to in duce the plaintiff t o ac to r r ef

ra i n fr o m ac t i n g i n re l i an ce o n th e s t at emen t ; (4 ) t h e p l ai n t i ff ’s j ust if ia ble r el ianc e; and ( 5) dam ag e to the pla int if f. P ro -F ab v. V ipa , I nc . , 772 F. 2d 8 47, 851 ( 11th C ir
. 198 5)
. T he A dki ns c la im that C ag le JVc om

m itt ed f our ty pe s of int en tio na l and f

al se a ct s: ( 1) r ec or din g f

al se tr ai le r w ei ght s; ( 2) r ec or din g fa lse tare and g ro ss w ei ght s; ( 3) f ai lin g to pr om

ptl y w ei gh the A dki ns’ bir ds; and (4 ) pr ovi din g in fe ri or

bir ds. Inthe ir br ie f to this c ourt, the A dki ns a sse rt that i f the re is sli ght , ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce sup portin g af ra ud c la im , that c la im

sho uld be tr ie d to a j ur y . T his is a co rr ec t st at em en t of G eo rg ialawon the sc ie nte r el em en t of f ra ud, but no t on all elem ents of a fr aud claim
. Ades v. W erther, 256 Ga. App. 8 (2002); Q uil l v. N ew

be rr y , 238 G a. App. 184 ( 1999 ). B ef or e sc ie nte r is r ea ch ed , the11

Adk in s m us t i de nt ify a fals e rep res en ta ti on . The A dkin s have not iden tified any false r epresentation. A s noted su pra, the re is no e vid en ce of

any int en tio na l m isw ei ghi ng o f the A dki ns’ bir ds, or of int en tio na l de liv er ie s of

poo r qua lity

bir ds o r fe ed

to the A dki ns. A ny discrepancies caused by

the im proper we ighin g procedures used before 1995 were
correc ted by

Cagle JV ’ s reim

bursem ent paym ents. Furtherm ore, the estim ates Danny Eiland originally

provided th e A dkin s contained express dis claim ers that they we re not to be taken as a guarantee of future per form ance and theref ore cannot be f ra udul en t m isr ep re se ntatio ns, e ve n th oughthe c om pany la te r de ci de d to change the size of the birds and the num ber of birds per house. 3. G eo rgi a R

IC OClaim T o pr ove a

vio la tio n of

the G eo rg iaRI CO statut e, the A dki ns m ust de m on st rat e two or m or e p red ic at e act s wh ic h a re re la te d a nd ha ve co nt in ui ty. Pel le ti er v . Zweifel , 92 1 F .2d14 65 , 15 13 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ); O.C.G.A. § 1 6- 14 -3 (8 ). T he A dki ns h av e atte m

pte d to pr ove f

ed er al m ai l f

ra ud and s ta te -l awthe ft

by de ce pti on. T o pr ove a

vio la tio n of

the f ed er al m ai l f

ra ud s ta tut e, the A dki ns m

ust sho w that C ag le JV“ (1 ) int en tio na lly part ic ipate [d ] in a sc he m e to d ef ra ud anothe r of
m oney or property

and (2) use[d] the m ails or wir es in furtherance of that schem e. ”12

Pe lle tie r, 921 F . 2d at 14 98. T o pr ove the ft by de ce pti on unde r G eo rg ialaw , the Adk in s m us t d em on st rat e th atCag le JV h adcri m in al in te nt an d k no wled ge . A ve ry v. Ch ry sle r Mot or s C or

p. , 214 G a. App. 602 ( 1994 ). T he A dki ns r el ie d on the sam e fa ct s f

or the se c la im s a s f

or the ir f ra ud c la im
. B ec au se w e ha ve f ound that C ag le JVdid

not m ak e an y

f ra udul en t or

de ce pti ve c om

m uni catio ns o r ha ve any kind o f cr im inal intent, the Adkins’ claim fails. T he Adkins also claim that Cag le JV co m

m it te d m ai l fr au d b y

m ai li ng frau du le nt fin al st at em en ts to th em . H ow ev er , the A dki ns h av e not ide nti fi ed

any state m en t whic h w as a lle ge dly fr au dul en t. 4. Fr au du le nt

Induc emen t a nd

Pro mis so ry Est op

pe l Cl ai ms Ge orgia law is clear that “ fraud cannot be predicated upon statem ents which
ar e pr om iss or

y in the ir na tur e as to fu tur e ac ts. ” W ar ne r v. Je te r, 115 G a. App. 6, 7 (1967); see also Sm ith v. McClung, 215 Ga. App. 786, 788 (199 4) (holding that

“ re pr es en ta tio ns c onc er

nin g e xpe ct at ion s and h ope s are not a ct ion ab le ”)
. G eo rg ia
co urts a lso have he ld tha t, abse nt s om ethin g m or e, apr om ise that a bus ine ss c oul d be e xpe ct ed

to ge ne rate ac er

ta in i nc om e doe s no t c onst itu te f ra ud. S ee K

ry s v. He nderson, 85 Ga. App. 323, 325 (195 2). The A dkin s contend th at Cagle JV ’ s initial estim ates regar ding the future perform ance of their farm s wer e intention al m isrepresentations which can13

es ta bli sh a pr ed ic at e fo r fr au dul en t i nduc em en t. T he A dki ns’ arg um en t f ai ls, however, because of both the rule in W arner and the language inclu ded in each
es tim at e dis cl ai m ing any

r ep re se ntatio n a s to f

uture pe rf orm an ce . N or

is the re any ev ide nc e in the r ec or d th at Ca gle JVm isr ep re se nte d anythi ng i n it s e sti m at es , intentio nally

or otherwise. The A dkin s also claim

that the initial estim ates constitut ed prom ises which
we re e nforceable by

the doctrine of prom issory estoppel. U nder Ge orgia law such
ane sto ppe l r equir es asho w ing that ( 1) the de fe ndant m ad e ce rt ai n pr om ise s, ( 2) the defendant shou ld have expected that the plainti ffs w ouldrely on such pr om is es , and (3) th e p la in ti ffs di d i n fa ctrel y on su ch pro m is es to th ei r de tri m en t. Doll v. G rand Union Co., 925 F.2d 1363 (11th Cir. 1991). Im portantly , where a pla int if f se ek s to e nf

or ce an un de rl y ing c ontra ct w hic h is r ed

uc ed to w ri tin g, pr om iss or

y e sto ppe l i s no t ava ila

ble a s ar em edy . B an k of D ad e v. Re ev es , 257 G a. 53 ( 1987 ). F urthe rm or e, pr om iss or y e sto ppe l do es not

appl y to re pr es en ta tio ns c onc er

nin g th e fu tur e, but

to re pr es en ta tio ns o f pa st o r pr es en t facts. V oy les v. Sa sser, 221 Ga. App. 305, 305-306 (1996). T he se ri es of

Br oil er P ro duc tio n A gr ee m en ts b etw ee n C ag le JVand the A dki ns a ll co nta ine d m er ge r cl au se s; thus, if the e sti m at es w er e en fo rc ea ble a t a ll, it m ust have be ena s apart

of tho se a gr ee m en ts. N oth ing in the a gr ee m en ts14

incorporated the initial estim ates. Moreover, because the agre em ents wer e w ritten the y c oul d no t be e nf

or ce d by pr om iss ar

y e sto ppe l. F urthe rm or e, the f ac t tha t the estim ates concerned the f uture also precluded their enforcem ent by prom issary
es top pe l. 5. A gri cu ltu ral

F air Prac tic es A ct

Claim T he A dki ns f

urthe r co nte nd tha t C ag le JVvio la te d th e A FP A by int er fe ri ng w iththe ir a tte m pt t o or ganiz e an d part ic ipate in a gr ow er s’ a sso ci at ionand dis cr im inatin g a ga ins t the m f or suc h part ic ipatio n. C ag le JVc onc ed es that i f it
en ga ge d insuc h be ha vio r, it w oul d be in vio la tio n of

the A FP A
. S ee 7 U . S. C. §§ 2301 -2 305. T he A dki ns, how ev er , pr oduc ed no e vid en ce that any

e m plo y ee of Ca gle JV
ev er hara sse d th em

r eg ar din g th ei r ef

fo rt s to or ganiz e an d part ic ipate in a gr ow er s’
as soc ia tio n. T houg h C ag le JVr ep re se ntativ es som et im es a tte nde d gr ow er s’ association m eetings, those m eetings were publi c and the repre sentatives never atte m pte d to int er fe re in the or ganiz at ion ’ s a ff ai rs . N or did the A dki ns p ut f

orth sig nif ic an t e vid en ce of

dis cr im inatio n. T he y

pr es en te d astatis tic al r eg re ssi on an al y sis ( w hic h th e dis tr ic t j udge gave li ttl e atte nti on and whic h c an not e sta bli sh a
ca usa l l ink ) an d is olate d c om m en ts b y Ca gle JVr ep re se ntativ es w hic h do not ap pe ar to be c onne ct ed

to the gr ow er s’ a sso ci at ioniss ue . A s no te d su pr a, the re is15

no e vid en ce of

any sy ste m at ic a tte m

pt t o pr ovi de the A dki ns w ithinf er ior bir ds o r fe ed , to use im

pr ope r w ei ghi ng p ro ce dur es , or to fo rc e the A dki ns t o si gn the arb it rat io n c on tra ct . 6. B re ac h of

Co ntrac t Clai m The A dkin s finally

claim that Cagle JVbreac hed its su ccessive Brolier Pr oduc tio n A gr ee m en ts w iththe m . T he y of fe r no n ewe vid en ce or

arg um en ts t o advanc e thi s c la im , but

r es t onthe sam e al le ga tio ns o f w ro ngdo ing the y c ite d in pr ior c la im s. A s C ag le JVspe ci fi ca lly

not es in its br ie fs to thi s c ourt, nothin g inthe agreem ents required that the Adkins receive a specific num

ber of f locks per y ear or bir ds p er hou se . W e ha ve a lr ea dy c onc lud ed

that C ag le JVdid

not int en tio na lly
m isw ei gh b ir ds, int en tio na lly giv e the A dki ns p oor

qua lity bir ds, int en tio na lly provide the Adkins with infer ior feed, or defr aud the Adkins. T he Adkins can poi nt t o no c ontra ct

ua l pr ovi sio n w hic h C ag le JVha s br ea ch ed
. We th e r e f

o r e a f f i rm th e d i s t r i c tc o urt ’s d i s mi s s a l o f th e A d k i n s ’ c l a i ms ag ai ns t Ca gl e Fo od s J V. C. The A dkin s’ Claim s Against Cagle’ s, I nc. and Cagle’ s Farm s, I nc. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo u n dth at th e A d k i n s ’ cl ai m s ag ai n s tCa g l e’s an dCa g l e’s F a rms w e r e b a rr e db y t h e ap p l i c ab l e s t a tu t e s o f l i mi t a t i o n s . F o r

th e f r au dc l a i m,16

the appl ic ab le statut e of

li m itatio ns i s f

our y ears . O
. C. G
. A
. §§ 9 -3 -2 5, 9- 3- 26, 9- 3- 31. T he A dki ns’ f

ra ud c la im a ga ins t C ag le ’ s and C ag le ’ s F ar m s w as ba se d on pr oj ec tio ns m ad e by

D an ny E iland i n 19 92 and 1 993, e igh t y ea rs be fo re the A dki ns f ile d th e pr es en t c om

pla int
. S ee D en son v. Ma loy , 239 G a. App. 778 , 779 (1999) (fraud statute of lim itation runs from date inj ury

occurs). T he Adkins offer
no arg um en t i n th ei r br ie fs on a ppe al a s to w hy

the statut e of

li m itatio ns d oe s no t apply
. Furtherm ore, their fr aud claim is baseless. T he incom e proj ections that Ca gle ’ s and C ag le ’ s F ar

m s or igi na lly

pr ovi de d th e A dki ns— an d onw hic h th e Adkins base their claim

—contained a disclaim er which m ade clear that they we re

“ fo r ill ustrativ e pur

pose s on ly

and .
. . not

int en de d a s apr oj ec tio n or f or ec as t of
ac tua l pe rf

orm an ce . ” E ve n if

the A dki ns’ c la im

w er e not barr ed by the statut e of lim itatio ns, G eo rg ialawis cl ear that “ fr au d c an not be pr ed ic at ed

upo n st at em en ts which ar e prom issory

in their nature as to future ac ts.” W arner v. Jeter , 115 Ga
. App. 6, 7 (1967). The st atut e o f li m it at io ns forth e AFPA cl ai m is two y ears . 7 U.S.C. § 2305 (c ). T he A dki ns’ A FP A c la im is ba se d onac onve rs at ionbe tw ee n D oug Cagle and L ucius Adkins on Dece m ber 30, 1998—three and a half y ears bef ore the ins tant c om

pla int w as f ile d. T he A dki ns d o no t a ddr es s th is i ssu e in the ir br ie fs or pr es en t any

arg um en t a s to w hy

the c la im is not ti m e- barr ed
.17

T he dis tr ic t c ourt w as the re fo re c or re ct in gr an tin g sum

m ar y j udgm en t f

or C a g l e ’s an dC a g l e ’s F a r

ms an dd i s mi s s i n g th e A d k i n s ’ c l a i ms a g a i n s tth e m. D . Ca gle ’ s, I nc . and C ag le ’ s F ar m s, I nc . ’ s M oti on f

or S an ct ion s Ca gle ’ s I nc . and C ag le ’ s F ar m s, I nc . have m ove d f

or sanc tio ns unde r Ru le 38 of the Federal R

ules of Appellate Pr ocedure. T hey contend that th is appeal wa s fr ivo lou s a s to the m . A lth oughw e hol d th at the statut e of

li m itatio ns a

ppl ie d to bar the A dkin s’ claim

against Cagle’ s and Cagle’ s Farm s, the A dkin s’ appeal w as not f ri vol ous. W e the re fo re de ny the m oti on f

or sanc tio ns. III . Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , w e A FF IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an ts o f
s u m m ary ju d g m en tfo r a l l th e d ef en d an t s an dDEN Y C ag l e’s In c. an dCa g l e’s Farm s, I nc . ’ s m oti ons fo r sanc tio ns.