[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 85 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 7 :1 0- cv -0 01 22 -HL KURT F. W ILKENING, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us VEOLIA ES E VERGREEN LAND FILL, INC., a Geo rg iaco rp or at io n, VEOLIA ES PECAN ROW LANDFILL, L LC, a Geo rg iali m it edli ab il it y co rp or at io n, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s,

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, HULL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-11852 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 1 of 10Afte r a b en ch tri al , Defen da nt s Veo li a ES Eve rg reenLand fil l, In c. an d

Veo li a Pec anRo w Land fil l, LLC ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi na l ju dg m en t i n fa vo r of Pla in ti ff Ku rt Wil ke ni ng on hi s cl ai m s o f br each of c on tra ctun de r Geo rg ialaw an d fo r de cl arat ory

jud gm en t. Aft er re vi ew, we affi rm . 1 I. BACKG ROUND FACTS A. The Ro ya lty Fees Cont ra ct Pl ai nt iff W il ke ni ng ’s com

pa ny, Big BinServ ic es , Inc . (“ Bi g B in ”), pu rch as eda pi ece o f pr op erty in Lown de s C ou nt y , Geor gi a. Big Bin th en ob ta in eda pe rm itto op erat e a l an df il l o n t he si te . In19 91 , Pla in ti ff Wilk en in g s ol d B ig Bin an d i ts ass et s t o Equi ve stW as te So lu ti on s. At t he same tim e, Bi g B in ag reedto pa y Pla in ti ff Wilk en in g ro y al ty fees of “ $1 .00 foreachto n o f was te , if an y , del iv eredto th e Lan df il l (i nc lu di ng an y co nt ig uo us an d/ orve rti cal ex pa ns io ns th ereo f ap pr ov edby the Env iro nm en ta l Pro te ct io n Di vi si on of t he Geor gi a Dep art m en t o f Natur al Res ou rces ) . . . and acce pt edby Big Bin . . . .” (Em ph as is ad de d) . The co nt ractde fin ed“ co nt ig uo us ” to m ean “ an y

pro pe rty with in a on e m il e rad iu s o f th e Lan df il l.” Th us , Big Bin ag reedto pa y

royalty fees for “ was te ” d el iv eredto th e land fil l o r to anex pa ns io n “We re view a grant of summar y judgme nt de novo, applying the same leg al standar ds 1 that bind the district court.” Storfe r v. Gua r. Trust L ife Ins. Co., 666 F.3d 1277, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2012). 2

Case: 12-11852 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 2 of 10on an y

pro pe rty with in on e m il e o f th e land fil l. In19 98 , th ro ug h aser ie s o f m erg ers an d c or po rat e n am e ch an ge s, Defen da ntVeol iaPeca n R ow Lan df il l, LLC (“ Veo li a Pec anRo w”) b ecame the own er an d o pe rat orof B ig Bin ’s “ Lan df il l.” Def en dant s Veo li a Pec anRo w and Veo li a ES Eve rg reen Land fil l, In c. (“ Veo li a Eve rg reen ”) ar e b oth wh ol ly-own ed subs id ia rie s o f Veo li a ES NorthAm eri ca, LLC. In20 02 , Defen da ntVeol iaEver gr een acqui redanalr eady -p erm it te d l an df il l fro m th e Deep So uth R eg io na l So li d Wast e Mana ge m en t Au th or it y (“ Deep So ut h Aut ho rit y ”). Veo li a Eve rg reen ’s lan df il l i s ad jacen t t o, an d s ha res a co m m on bo un da ry with, Veo li a Pec anRo w’ s l an df il l. Veo li a Eve rg reen acqui redth is ad jacen t l an df

il l i nt en di ng to m ov e Veo li a Pec anRo w’ s o pe rat io ns an d was te st ream to th e Eve rg reen lan df

il l o nc e th e Pec anRo w lan df il l re ach edcap aci ty, whi chitdi d i n 2 01 0. Inad di ti on , bet ween20 02 an d 2 01 0, the two lan df il ls sh ared Peca n R ow’s m ai li ng ad dr es s, fr on t en tra nc e, sc al es an d s om e in te rn al roa ds . B. Wi lk eni ng ’s Compla in t Pl ai nt iff W il ke ni ng ’s com

pl ai ntall eg edth atDefen da nt s b reac he d t he ro y al ty fees co nt ractby fail in g t o p ay W il ke ni ng for(1) reu sabl e o r rec y cl ab le m at eri al de li ve redto Veol iaPeca n R ow’s l an df il l an d (2 ) m at eri al de po si te d i n Veo li a Eve rg reen ’s adjac en t l an df il l. Wilk en in g s ou gh t d am ag es inth e fo rm of 3 Case: 12-11852 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 3 of 10ro y al ty paym en ts form at eri al de po si te d i n Veo li a Pec anRo w’ s an d Veo li a

Eve rg reen ’s lan df

il ls . Afte r ex te ns iv e d is co ve ry , W il ke ni ng m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t. In res po ns e, Defen da nt s Veo li a Pec anRo w andVeol iaEver gr een arg ue d: (1) th at recyclab le an d re us ab le m at eri al de li ve redto th e Pec anRo w lan df il l i s n ot“ was te ” un de r th e ro y al ty fees co nt ractbe cau se itis no t d ep os it edinth e la nd fil l s o a s t o de pl et e cap aci ty; an d (2 ) th atVeol iaEver gr een ’s lan df il l i s a s ep arat e la nd fil l, rathe r th anan“ ex pa ns io n” of Ve ol iaPeca n R ow’s l an df il l wi th in th e m ean in g o f th e ro y al ty fees co nt ract . 2 C. Dis tri ct Co urt’ s Rul in gs The di stric t co urt g ran te d P la in ti ff Wilk en in g’s s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n as to li ab il it y , bu t d en ie d i t as da m ag es . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d the term “was te ” in th e ro y al ty fees co nt ractto be un am bi gu ou s an d re fu se d t o “ lo okou ts id e th e fo urco rn ers of the Agre em en t t o d efi ne th e te rm .” In st ead , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t “ [w]ast e si m pl y m ean s was te .” The d is tri ctco urt re ferr edto th e or di na ry , di ct io na ry

de fin it io n o f “ refu se or s up erfl uo us m at eri al ” an d “ da m ag ed ,

Veolia ES North Ame rica , L L C was named a s a def endant in Wilkening’ s orig inal 2 complaint, but not in his amende d complaint. Def endants Ve olia Pecan Row a nd Veolia Evergree n are repr esente d by the same c ounsel and madea joint response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgme nt. 4 Case: 12-11852 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 4 of 10de fect iv e, or supe rfl uo us m at eri al pro du ceddu rin g o r le ft o ve r fro m a m anuf actur in g p ro ces s o r in du st ria l o pe rat io n, s crap , refu se fro m pl aces of h um an oran im al habi ta ti onan d g arb ag e, rubb is h.” (Quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth atth e o rd in ary de fin it io n o f “ was te ,” wou ldin cl ud e th e ki ndof r ecyclab le an d re us ab le m at eri al (su ch as c on st ru ct io n a ndde m ol it io n m at eri al , che m ic al m ix in g a ge nt s, s hr ed de r fl uf f, fo un dry san d a ndby-pro du ctash ) de li ve redto Defen da nt s’ lan df il ls an d t ha t h ow Def

en dant s cl as si fie d t hi s m at eri al aft er d el iv ery was irr el ev an t. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t u nd er the ro y al ty fees co nt ract , W il ke ni ng is en ti tl edto pa ym en t fo r was te , in cl ud in g was te Veo li a Pec anRo w cla ss ifi edas r ecyclab le an d re us ab le , del iv eredto Veol iaPeca n Ro w’ s l an df

il l. 3 W it h re sp ectto Veol iaEver gr een ’s lan df il l, the di st ric t co urt n ot edth e fo ll owi ng un di sp ut edfact s: (1) th e EPD is su eda so li d was te pe rm itforth e la nd fil l Veo li a Eve rg reen pu rch as ed , andth e p erm itwas t ran sf erre d t o Veo li a Eve rg reen ; (2 ) Veo li a Eve rg reen “pu rch as edth e Eve rg reen Land fil l i n o rd er t o c on ti nu e an d ex pa ndit s s ol idwast e b us in es s” ; (3 ) “ th e Eve rg reen Land fil l i s l oc at edwithi n o ne m il e o f th e Pec anRo w Land fil l.” Th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t, b ecau se The district cour

t determined, how ever , that Geor g ia’s six -year statute of limitations 3 barr ed Wilkening f

rom seekingdamag es for nonpay ment of royalties prior Oc tober 20, 2004. That rulingis not at issue on appea l. 5

Case: 12-11852 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 5 of 10Veo li a Eve rg reen ’s lan df il l i s l oc at edwithi n aon e m il e rad iu s o f Veo li a Pec an Ro w’ s l an df

il l, Wilk en in g i s en ti tl edto royalty pa ym en ts forpa stan d fu tu re was te de li ve redto th e Veo li a Eve rg reen lan df il l. Aft er a h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt is su eda se co ndord er awar di ng W il ke ni ng $7 07 ,41 1.0 1 i n d am ag es forunpa id ro y al ty paym en ts . II . DISCUSSI ON On ap pe al , Defen da nt s d o n otch al le ng e th e am ou ntof d am ag es . Rath er, th ey arg ue , as t he y

di d i n the di st ric t co urt, tha t (1 ) “ was te ” d oe s n otin cl ud e recyclab le or r eu sabl e m at eri al ; an d (2 ) th e Veo li a Eve rg reen lan df il l i s n ota co nt ig uo us “ ex pa ns io n” of t he Veol iaPeca n R ow l an df il l. Afte r rev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we fin d n o re ve rs ib le erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t t o Wil ke ni ng . The di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly con cl ud edth atth e te rm “ was te ” inth e ro y al ty fees co nt ract is un am bi gu ou s an d s ho ul d b e g iv enit s p la in an d o rd in ary m ean in g. Se e Am eri canEm

pi re Su rp lu s Li ne s In s. Co . v. Hatha way Dev. Co ., Inc ., 28 8 Ga. 7 49 , 75 0, 7 07 S.E.2d36 9, 3 71 (20 11 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atif t he co nt ract ’s term s ar e un am bi gu ou s, the co urt en fo rces th e co nt ractacco rd in g t o i ts term s an d l oo ks on ly to th e co nt ractforth e m ean in g) ; Be nt on v. Pa te l, 2 57 Ga. 66 9, 6 72 , 36 2 S .E.2d 21 7, 2 20 (19 87 ) (s ta ti ng th atword s i n aco nt ract“ wil l b e g iv enth ei r or di na ry 6 Case: 12-11852 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 6 of 10si gn ifi cat io n, an d wh ere the lan gu ag e in th e d oc um en t i s p la in , it s m ean in g wi ll

no t b e ex te nd edby int erp ret at io n” ); O.C.G.A. § 1 3- 2- 2( 2) (pr ov id in g tha t co nt ract te rm s ar e g en eral ly giv enth ei r “ us ua l an d c omm on si gn ifi cat io n” ). Fo r th e rea so ns gi ve n b y

th e d is tri ctco urt, we fi ndno m eri t t o Def en da nt s’ arg um en t tha t the term

“ was te ” actua ll y

refe rs to “ so li d was te ,” as de fin edinth e Geo rg ia ’s Sol idW as te Man ag em en t Act , O.C.G.A. § 1 2- 8- 22 (2 5) . Nor d o we acce ptth atth e te rm

“ was te ” co nt ai ns a la te ntam bi gu it y inth atitco ul d re fer t o

“ so li d was te .” As the di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d, h adth e p art ie s i nt en de d t hi s m ean in g, co m

m on ly use d i n t he wast e m an ag em en t i ndus try, the y co ul d h av e in se rte d t he word“ so li d” be fo re the word“ was te ,” bu t the y di d n ot . Mor eo ve r, be cau se th e te rm

“ was te ” is cle ar an d u na m bi gu ou s, the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y de cl in edDefen da nt s’ in vi ta ti onto lo okou ts id e th e co nt ractto de te rm in e th e pa rti es ’ in te nt . See Irv in v. Lax m i, In c., 26 6 Ga. 2 04 , 20 5, 4 67 S.E.2d51 0, 5 12 (1 99 6) (“ Paro l ev id en ce m ay no t b e co ns id eredun le ss th e wri tt enin stru m en t i s am bi gu ou s.”) ; S. Fe d. Sa v. & Loan Ass ’n of At la nt a v . Ly le , 24 9 Ga. 2 84 , 28 7, 29 0 S .E.2d45 5, 4 58 (19 82 ) (s ta ti ng th atth e co urt m ay “ lo okou ts id e th e wri tt en te rm s o f th e co nt ract ” to de te rm in e th e p art ie s’ in te nton ly whe n a n a m bi gu it y ex is ts ). Defen da nt s al so ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e Veo li a 7 Case: 12-11852 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 7 of 10Eve rg reen lan df il l was a “ co nt ig uo us ” “ ex pa ns io n” of Ve ol iaPeca n R ow’s la nd fil l. Defe nd an ts po in t t o t he factth atth e Eve rg reen lan df il l was ori gi na ll y de ve lo pe d a ndsep arat el y pe rm it te d b y

th e Deep So ut h Au th or it y to co m pe te with th e Pec anRo w lan df

il l. Ho wev er, i n t hi s re co rd , itis als o u nd is pu te d t ha t Veo li a Eve rg reen acqui redth e la nd fil l i n 2 00 2 fo r th e p ur po se of m ov in g Veo li a Pec an Ro w’ s o pe rat io n a ndcu st om ers to th e Veo li a Eve rg reen lan df il l wh enth e Pec an Ro w lan df

il l fi ll edup . In fa ct , Veol iaEver gr een rep res en te d t o t he EPD th atit s la nd fil l was in te nd ed“ to serve as aco nt in ua ti on of l an df il li ng forth e Pec anRo w Lan df il l o nc e th atlan df

il l re ach es cap aci ty” andth at“bo th lan df il ls wil l h an dl e th e sa m e was te st ream

in su cces si on fro m

Peca n R ow Lan df

il l t o Ev erg reen Land fil l.” Si m il arl y , inm eet in gs with EPD s ta ff, Veo li a co ns ul ta nt s ex pl ai ne d t ha t Veo li a (th e p aren t co m

pa ny of Veo li a Pec anRo w andVeol iaEver gr een ) pl an ne d t o

“ m ov e th ei r op erat io ns to th e Eve rg reen si te ” as th e Pec anRo w lan df il l fi ll edup . Bet ween20 02 an d 2 01 0, the Veol iaEver gr eenlan df il l s ha redth e Veo li a Pec an Ro w lan df

il l’s m ai li ng ad dr es s, fr on t en tra nc e, sc al es an d s om e in te rn al roa ds . And , by th e ti m e th e Veo li a Eve rg reen lan df il l b eg anop erat in g i n 2 01 0, the Veol ia Peca n R ow l an df

il l’s cu st om ers an d e m

pl oyees i n fa ctha d b een“ tra ns it io ne d” to th e Veo li a Eve rg reen lan df il l. Defen da nt s al so po in t o utth atth e EPD do es no t co ns id er the Veol ia 8 Case: 12-11852 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 8 of 10Eve rg reen lan df il l t o b e a h or iz on ta l o r ve rti cal “ expa ns io n” of t he Veol iaPeca n Ro w lan df

il l, as th os e te rm s ar e d efi ne d b y Geor gi a la w, andha s n otreg ul at editas su ch . This is no t s ur

pr is in g s in ce n o o ne co nt en ds th atth e Veo li a Eve rg reen la nd fil l i s a h or iz on ta l o r ve rti cal ex pa ns io n. Se e O.C.G.A. § 1 2- 8- 24 (e)( 1) (C)( ii ) (requi rin g p erm itm od ifi cat io ns for“ ve rti cal or h or iz on ta l ex pans io n” ); Ga . Com p. R. & Re gs . § 3 91 -3 -4 -.01 (2 9) & (7 4) (de fin in g l at eral an d v ert ic al ex pa ns io n) . Mo reo ve r, EPD st aff t es ti fie d t ha t, al th ou gh th e Veo li a Eve rg reenan d Veo li a Peca n R ow l an df

il ls are s ep arat el y -p erm it te d l an df il ls , th ey wou ldbe co un te d a s on e la nd fil l u nd er O.C.G.A. § 1 2- 8- 25 .4 b ecau se th e Veo li a Eve rg reen lan df il l i s a

“ co nt ig uo us ex pa ns io n” of t he Veol iaPeca n R ow l an df il l u nd er tha t s ta tu te . See O.C.G.A. § 12 -8 -2 5.4 (al lo win g o nl y th ree p erm it te d s ol idwast e fac il it ie s wi th in a two -m il e rad iu s, b utpro vi di ng th attwo co nt ig uo us faci li ti es with t he same owne r an d p erm it te d fo r th e sa m e type o f la nd fil l ar e co un te d a s o ne ). Fi na ll y , Defen dant s as se rt t wo ad di ti on al arg um en ts forwhy th ey are n ot li ab le : (1 ) Veo li a Eve rg reen was n ota “ su cces so r” p arty to Big Bin un de r th e ro y al ty fees co nt ract ; an d (2 ) Veo li a Pec anRo w it se lf n ev er “ acce pt ed ” was te de li ve redto th e Veo li a Eve rg reen lan df il l. Bec au se Defen da nt s d idno t fa irl y rai se th es e is su es be fo re the di st ric t co urt, we d o n otad dr es s t he m . See Re so lu ti on Trus t Co rp . v. Dunm ar Co rp ., 43 F.3d58 7, 5 98 -9 9 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 5) (enba nc ) 9 Case: 12-11852 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 9 of 10(ex pl ai ni ng th atarg um en ts no t fa irl y rai se d i n t he di st ric t co urt g en eral ly are no t co ns id eredon ap pe al ); I n re PanAm . W or ldAirways, In c., 90 5 F .2d14 57 , 14 62 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) (“ [I]f a pa rty ho pe s t o p res erv e a cl ai m , arg um en t, the ory , or de fen se forap pe al , sh e m us t fi rs t cl earl y

pre se ntitto th e d is tri ctco urt, tha t i s, i n su ch a way

as t o a ffo rdth e d is tri ctco urt an op po rtu ni ty to re co gn iz e an d ru le on it .”). Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi na l ju dg m en t i n fa vo r of Pl ai nt iff W il ke ni ng . AFFIRMED.

10 Case: 12-11852 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 10 of 10