FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L6, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 51 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -0 29 92 -CAP

HUBERT HOLLAN D, JR., ANNIE GLO RIA MOR RIS, LA MAR SMI TH, DEMETRIUS B. WILLIAMS, ANTHONYNELSON, RONNEL FINLEY, TIFFANY HOLLIS, on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d a ll ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , ve rs us LEVY PREMIUM FOODSERVIC E LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d.b .a. Atl an taSp orts Cat eri ng , COMP ASS GROUP USA, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees , COMP ASS GROUP NORTH AMERIC A, d.b .a. Levy Rest au ran ts , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 6, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Hub ertHol la nd , Jr. an d h is cla ss of p la in ti ffs ap pe al fro m a di st ric t co urt or de r di sm is si ng th ei r co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m an d fr om a subs eque nt or de r de nyin g t he ir m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n a ndreque stforlea ve to am en d. W e aff irm bo th ord ers . I. Defen da nt s C om

pa ss Group USA an d i ts who ll y own edsubs id ia ry

Levy Prem iu m Fo od se rv ic e (t og ethe r, Levy) hav e an ex cl us iv e co nt ractto pro vi de co nc es si on s an d fo odservi ce i n l ux ury su it es at P hi li ps Aren a, th e Geo rg iaDom e, an d At la nt a Mo to r Sp eed way . The p la in ti ffs are cu rren t an d fo rm er Lev y em pl oyees wh o wo rk edas s ui te att en da nt s, p ro vi di ng foo d s erv ic es to pa tro ns . Lev y im po se d a20 % servi ce ch arg e o n a ll foo d a ndbe ve rag es th e su it e pa tro ns pu rch as ed . In i ts su it e m enus , Levy not ifi edpa tro ns th at“ a 2 0% s erv ic e ch arg e . . . will be ad de d t o a ll ord ers .” Levy als o d is se m in at edto pa tro ns a 2do cu m en t en ti tl ed“ Serv ic e Ch arg e/ Tip pi ng Po li cy ,” whi chread :

As a c on ve ni en ce t o o urgu es ts , we hav e in cl ud edth is po li cy to cl ari fy an y co nf us io n re ga rd in g t he servi ce ch arg e an d t ip pi ng po li cy in The Su it es at P hi li ps Aren a: 1 The servi ce ch arg e, whi ch is on y ou r bi ll , is sh aredin th e fo rm of hi gh er wag es forall Su it e em pl oyees. Ithe lp s o urco m pa ny attracta hi gh qu al it y

em pl oyee fro m

th e se t up c rew t o t he cle anup crew an d ev eryone in be twee n. Al l t he se em pl oyees a re cr it ic al to m ak in g you r ex pe rie nc e m em or ab le . If y oufeel th aty ou [si c] Sui te Att en da ntha s p ro vi de d aservi ce t ha t i s of th e h ig he stqu al it y

th enpl eas e fee l fr ee t o e xt en d ape rs on al gr atui ty. Ti p so li ci ta tio n is a v io la tio n o f ou r po li ci es . The pl ai nt iff

s wer e aware of t hi s p ol ic y . Accor di ng to th e co m pl ai nt , Levy ret ai ne d the servi ce ch arg e an d p ai d “ no ne or v irtua ll y no ne ” o f itto th e p la in ti ffs . The pl ai nt iff

s s ue d Lev y , all eg in g “ wro ng fu l fa il ur e to pay Pla in ti ffs . . . th e 20 % servi ce ch arg e.” Inanam en de d c om pl ai nt , th ey

all eg edfou r cau se s o f act io n: bre ach of u ni la te ral co ntract , bre ach of c on tra ctas ath ird -p art y be ne fic ia ry , un

jus t en ric hm en t/ qu an tu m m eru it , andco nv ers io n. Lev y m ov edto di sm is s t he co m

pl ai ntun de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ), an d t he di st ric t co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n. Th e p la in ti ffs fil eda m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n

The c omplaint does not specifica lly alleg e that this policy

was a dapted to the other 1 locations in which L evy

operated, includingthe Georg ia Dome a nd the Atlanta Motor Spee dway . 3on th ei r th ird -p art y be ne fic iary

bre ach -o f-co nt ractcla im . In t he m ot io n, t he pl ai nt iff s re qu es te d l eav e to fil e a s eco ndam en de d c om pl ai ntforbre ach of co nt racton ly, whi ch th ey att ach ed . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n a ndth e reque stto am en d, fi nd in g t ha t am en dm en t wo ul d p ro ve fu ti le . The pl ai nt iff

s n ow ap pe al bo th of t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd ers .

II. W e rev ie w de no vo a di stric t co urt’s d is m is sa l u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(6 ), ap pl y in g t he same stand ardas t he di st ric t co urt. Ran da ll v. Sc ot t , 61 0 F .3d70 1, 70 5 (1 1th C ir. 2 01 0) . “ W e th eref or e acc ep t as tru e th e fac ts as s etforth in th e co m pl ai ntan d d raw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es in th e p la in ti ff’s fav or .” Id. W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Co rw in v. W

al t Disn ey Co . , 47 5 F .3d12 39 , 12 54 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Andwe rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si onth atlea ve to am en d wo ul d b e fu ti le de no vo . Co rs el lo v. Lin ca re, Inc . , 42 8 F .3d10 08 , 10 12 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). III. A. Brea ch of Un il at eral Co nt ract 2 Inth ei r co m

pl ai nt , th e p la in ti ffs all eg edth atth ey an d Lev y en te redin to a The pa rties agree that Geog ia substantive law g overns this ca se. 2 4un il at eral co nt ract , th e Servi ce Ch arg e/ Tip pi ng Po li cy , andth atLevy brea ch edth is

co nt ractby retai ni ng th e se rv ic e ch arg e. The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t t he Po li cy , to th e ex te ntitco ns ti tu te d an a gr eem en t, was be twee n Lev y an d i ts pa tro ns on ly. W e ag ree. Th e p la in ti ffs ha ve no t, an d c an no t, p ro vi de an y factua l al le ga ti on s t o s up po rt t he ir a ss ert io n t ha t the Po li cy , whi ch was b etween Levy and it s p atro ns , so m eh ow b ecame a con tra ctbe twee n t he m se lv es an d Lev y . The Po li cy ’s pl ai n l an gu ag e sh ows th atitwas d ire ct edto ward s Lev y ’s pat ro ns alo ne . Se e Ca sp er

v. Har riso n Ha tc he ry, Inc . , 32 1 S .E.2d78 5, 7 86 (Ga. 19 84 ) (“ The fir st requi rem en t o f th e law rel at iv e to co nt ract s i s t ha t t he re m us t b e a m eet in g o f th e m in ds of t he pa rti es , andm utua li ty . . . .”); Myer

s v. Te xa co Refi ni ng

&Mktg ., Inc . , 42 2 S .E.2d21 6, 2 19 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 92 ) (“ Geo rg ialaw d oe s n otpe rm itus to ig no re p la in lan gu ag e in a co nt ract. . . .”). The p la in ti ffs ha ve no leg al supp ort fo r th ei r pr op os it io n t ha t the ir aware ne ss of a n a gr eem en t t o wh ic h the y are n otpa rti es all ows reco ve ry on an y br each of t ha t ag reem en t. An d t he cas es th e p la in ti ffs cit e in supp ort o f th ei r arg um en t al l co nc ernem

pl oyees’ awaren es s o f anem pl oyer-em

pl oyee co nt ractor po li cy . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d the br each -o f-u ni la te ral -co nt ractcla im . B. Brea ch of C on tra ctas aThi rd -Party Benef ic ia ry 5The pl ai nt iff s’ th ird -p art y

be ne fic iary

co nt ractcla im

als o fa il s. Th e m ere factth ata th irdparty woul d b en efi t fr om pe rfo rm an ce o f anag reem en t i s in su ffi ci en t t o p erm itth atpa rty to e nf or ce t he ag reem en t. Haldi v. Pied mon t Nep hr ol og

y Ass oc s. , 64 1 S .E.2d29 8, 3 00 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 07 ). A th irdpa rty on ly ha s s ta nd in g t o m ai nt ai n abre ach -o f-co nt ractact io n i f it“ cl earl y ap pe ar[s ] fro m th e co nt ractth atitwas i nt en de d fo r [the th irdparty’ s] ben efi t.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The Po li cy

he re, ev enass um in g i t i s en fo rceabl e b etween Levy andit s pa tro ns , do es no t ev id en ce Lev y ’s andth e p atro ns ’ in te ntto be ne fitth e p la in ti ffs . In st ead , th e Po li cy ’s st at edin te ntis to be ne fitpa tro ns . The Po li cy pe rm it s Lev y

to

“ at tra cta hi gh qu al ity

em pl oyee,” whi ch is “ cri ti cal to m ak in g [t he pa tro ns ’] ex pe rie nc e m em or ab le .” The p la in ti ffs ’ fo cu s o n t he Po li cy ’s st at em en t t ha t t he se rv ic e ch arg e “ is sh aredin th e fo rm of h ig he r wag es forall Su it e em pl oyees” is un av ai li ng : the ex pr es s p ur po se of h ig he r wag es is ul ti m at el y to be ne fitpa tro ns , no t em pl oyees. Thus , th e p la in ti ffs lac k s ta nd in g a s t hi rd -p art y be ne fic ia rie s. Bec au se th e p la in ti ffs lac k s ta nd in g, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d t he cl ai m an d d en ie d t he pl ai nt iff

s’ subs eque ntm ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. An d t he di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly den ie d t he pl ai nt iff s’ reque stforlea ve to am en d t he ir br each -o f-co nt ractcla im

be cau se anam en de d c om pl ai ntco ul d n otch an ge th e 6Po li cy ’s cle ar i nt en t t o b en efi t p atro ns .

C. Unju stEnri ch m en t/ Qua ntum Meru it The pl ai nt iff

s’ alt ern at iv e arg um en t t ha t Lev y was u nju st ly enri ch edals o fai ls as am at te r of

law. Re co ve ry

un de r a the ory

of u nju sten ric hm en t o r qu an tu m m eru itrequi res a sh owi ng th at : (1 ) th e p la in ti ffs pe rfo rm edva lu ab le servi ces for Lev y ; (2 ) Lev y

eit he r reque st edor kno win gl y acce pt edth e se rv ic es ; (3 ) Lev y ’s rece ip t o f th e se rv ic es witho utco m pe ns at in g t he pl ai nt iff

s wo ul d b e u nju st ; an d (4 ) th e p la in ti ffs expe ct edco m pe ns at io n a t t he ti m e th ey ren de redth e se rv ic es . Artac Co rp . v. Aus ti n K

el le y Adv er ., Inc . , 39 9 S .E.2d52 9, 5 33 -3 4 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 19 90 ). The pl ai nt iff

s’ all eg at io n t ha t Lev y ’s ret en ti on of t he servi ce ch arg e is un jus t— a le ga l co nc lu si on , rathe r th ananall eg at io n o f fac t— is in su ffi ci en t t o de feata m ot io n t o d is m is s. Se e Ash cr of t v. Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 93 7, 1 94 9 (2 00 9) (em ph as iz in g t ha t a c om

pl ai ntth atpro vi de s o nl y

“ na ke d a ss ert io ns de vo idof fu rth er fa ctua l en hanc em en t” is in su ffi ci en t as a m atte r of law (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Andth e p la in ti ffs fai le d t o s etforth an y fact s s ho win g t ha t t he y were n otjus tl y

co m pe ns at edby the wage s Lev y supp li ed . Se e id. (requi rin g a pl ai nt iff to pl eadfact s tha t s ta te a pl au si bl e cl ai m forrel ie f). D. Co nv ers io n 7Bec au se th e p la in ti ffs ha ve fai le d, fo r th e rea so ns ab ov e, to all eg e su ffi ci en t

fact s t o s ho w th ey

ha ve a ri gh t t o t he servi ce ch arg e, th ey can no t s ta te a cl ai m

for co nv ers io n. Se e Ci tyof

Co ll eg e Park v. S

he ra to n S av an na h C

or p. , 50 9 S .E.2d 37 1, 3 74 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 98 ) (“ Inanact io n fo r co nv ers io n, p ro of of t it le to th e pr op erty in th e p la in ti ff, ri gh t o f po ss es si on in th e p la in ti ff, p os se ss io n i n t he de fen da nt , dem an d fo r po ss es si on , refu sa l t o s urren de r, an d v al ue of t he pro pe rty, m ak e a p rima facie cas e.” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). IV. Fo r th e rea so ns setforthab ov e, th e o rd ers of t he di stric t co urt d is m is si ng th e p la in ti ffs ’ co m

pl ai nt , den y in g t he ir m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, an d d en y in g th ei r reque stforlea ve to am en d a re AFFIRMED.

8