Case Name: CAPITAL GAMING SUPPLIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAMETECH INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-08
Citations: 166 F. App'x 137
Docket Number: No. 04-61044
Parties: CAPITAL GAMING SUPPLIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAMETECH INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 166
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
CAPITAL GAMING SUPPLIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAMETECH INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-61044.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 8, 2006.
Michael Farrell, Mitchell, Mcnutt & Sams, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
John Adam Crawford, Jr., Paul N. Davis, Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Cannada, Jackson, MS, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Capital Gaming Supplies, Inc. ("Capital") filed claims against Defendants-Appellees GameTeeh International, Inc. ("GameTeeh"), International Gaming Systems, LLC, and individual principals of the Appellee entities, alleging tortious interference with Capital's subleases with certain Mississippi bingo halls, as well as breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. GameTeeh counterclaimed for interference with existing contracts. The entities are all distributors of bingo gaming supplies to bingo halls licensed by the Mississippi Gaming Commission. Capital and Game-Tech each complained that the other interfered in its sub-lease agreements with Mississippi bingo halls for the provision of fixed base video bingo units.
Before the district court, multiple parties moved for summary judgment and for dismissal. The court entered summary judgment for Appellees and dismissed Capital's cause, finding a central premise of Capital's tortious interference with contracts claim flawed and determining that under Mississippi law Appellees were entitled to judgment because (1) Capital failed to demonstrate a necessary element of its claim; (2) temporary impossibility prevented any charge of breach by nonperformance; and (3) Appellees' preexisting agreements were neither divisible nor partially terminated. Capital appeals.
This Court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court. Vela v. City of Houston, 276 F.3d 659, 666 (5th Cir.2001); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). In this diversity case, we apply the law of Mississippi and look to the state's appellate courts for guidance, where the state's supreme court has not spoken on an issue, unless we are convinced that the supreme court of Mississippi would not adopt the intermediate courts' analysis. See Ladue v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 920 F.2d 272, 274 (5th Cir.1991).
After a thorough review of the briefs, the oral arguments of the parties, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that Capital failed to prove a necessary element of its claims and that the preexisting GameTeeh agreements with the bingo halls were neither divisible nor partially terminated. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of judgment to Appellees essentially for the reasons stated in its memorandum opinion and order filed September 30, 2004.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
. On April 7, 2005, Capital filed a stipulation of dismissal of certain claims against Appellees relating to prospective leases with particular bingo halls.