Case Name: CITY OF STUART, a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Florida, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. NORTHROP GRUMMANSYSTEMS CORPORATION, and as a successor to f.k.a. Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-08
Citations: 209 F. App'x 924
Docket Number: No. 06-10506
Parties: CITY OF STUART, a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Florida, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. NORTHROP GRUMMANSYSTEMS CORPORATION, and as a successor to f.k.a. Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
Judges: Before ANDERSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 924–925

Head Matter:
CITY OF STUART, a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Florida, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. NORTHROP GRUMMANSYSTEMS CORPORATION, and as a successor to f.k.a. Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
No. 06-10506
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 8, 2006.
David Steinfeld, Kramer Sopko & Levenstein, Richard H. Levenstein, Kramer, Sewell, Sopko & Levenstein, P.A., Stuart, FL, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant.
Laurie Webb Daniel, Holland & Knight, Atlanta, GA, James D. Wing, Miami, FL, Judith M. Mercier, Holland & Knight, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
Before ANDERSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, Judge.
Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed for the reasons fully discussed at oral argument. We agree with the district court that paragraph two of the contract is unambiguous, and provides that the 1.3 million gallons per day requirement is suspended to the extent that the aquifer underlying the site is deficient, so long as the shortfall is through no fault of Grumman. The district court found as a fact that the shortfall challenged in the instant case resulted from such aquifer deficiency, and appellant has wholly failed to demonstrate that the finding is clearly erroneous. Although the district court is probably correct with respect to several of its alternative findings, which would also indicate the same judgment in favor of appellee, we need not address such alternative grounds in light of our holding.
According, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.