Title: Ex parte Newport Television, LLC. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Cyndi Booth v. Newport Television, LLC) (Mobile Circuit Court: CV-08-901716; Civil Appeals : 2100413). Writ Quashed. No Opinion.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1111280
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2012

Rel: 11/30/2012 
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r 
o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1111280 
Ex parte Newport T e l e v i s i o n , LLC 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS 
(In re: 
Cyndi Booth 
v. 
Newport T e l e v i s i o n , LLC) 
(Mobile C i r c u i t Court, CV-08-901716; 
Court of C i v i l Appeals, 2100413) 
MAIN, 
J u s t i c e . 
WRIT QUASHED. NO OPINION. 
Malone, C.J., and S t u a r t , B o l i n , P a r k e r , and 
Wise, J J . , 
c o n c u r . 
Murdock and 
Shaw, J J . , d i s s e n t . 
1111280 
MURDOCK, J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
In 2007, Newport T e l e v i s i o n , LLC, p u r c h a s e d f r o m C l e a r 
Channel B r o a d c a s t i n g , I n c . , 
t h e a s s e t s and o p e r a t i o n s o f two 
t e l e v i s i o n 
s t a t i o n s a t w h i c h C y n d i Booth was employed. 
I n 
c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h h e r employment, Booth and C l e a r C h a n n e l had 
e n t e r e d i n t o a n o n c o m p e t i t i o n agreement. 
T h i s case i n v o l v e s 
a 
d i s p u t e 
between Newport and Booth 
as t o whether 
t h e 
n o n c o m p e t i t i o n agreement was a s s i g n e d t o , and thus e n f o r c e a b l e 
by, Newport as p a r t o f i t s 
p u r c h a s e o f t h e two s t a t i o n s f o r 
w h i c h Booth worked. 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t h e l d t h a t i t 
was and 
e n t e r e d a summary judgment f o r 
Newport. 
The C o u r t o f 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s 
r e v e r s e d t h e summary judgment. 
Booth v. Newport 
T e l e v i s i o n , LLC, [Ms. 2100413, Dec. 16, 2011] 
So. 3d 
( A l a . 
C i v . 
App. 2011). 
Newport sought c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w by 
t h i s C o u r t o f t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s ' d e c i s i o n . 
T h i s 
C o u r t g r a n t e d t h a t r e v i e w , b u t today quashes t h e w r i t by w h i c h 
i t d i d 
so. I d i s s e n t from t h i s a c t i o n . 
I 
t a 
p p e a 
r 
s t 
o me 
t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t was 
c o r r e c t . 
A t b e s t from 
Booth's 
s t a n d p o i n t , t h e c o n t r a c t p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h Newport p u r c h a s e d 
the 
a s s e t s and o p e r a t i o n s o f C l e a r Channel ("the p u r c h a s e 
agreement") i s 
ambiguous, and, i f 
t h a t i s 
so, t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
2 
1111280 
c o r r e c t l y 
c o n s t r u e d 
i t i n f a v o r 
of Newport. 
A r g u a b l y , 
i n 
f a c t , 
the 
p u r c h a s e 
agreement 
i s unambiguous 
i n 
f a v o r 
of 
Newport. 
A r t i c l e 
1.1 
of the p u r c h a s e agreement p r o v i d e s , 
r a t h e r 
s i m p l y , t h a t Newport a c q u i r e d 
" a l l 
r i g h t , 
t i t l e and i n t e r e s t 
of [ C l e a r Channel] i n and t o the S t a t i o n A s s e t s . " 
C o n s i s t e n t 
w i t h the n o t i o n of a s a l e of an e n t i r e b u s i n e s s 
o p e r a t i o n , 
A r t i c l e 1.1 
d e f i n e s 
" S t a t i o n A s s e t s " 
as " a l l 
of the 
a s s e t s ,  
r i g h t s and p r o p e r t i e s used or h e l d f o r use 
e x c l u s i v e l y [ i ] n 
the 
o w n e r s h i p 
and 
o p e r a t i o n 
of 
the 
S t a t i o n s . " 
(Emphasis 
added.) Booth's n o n c o m p e t i t i o n agreement i n d i s p u t a b l y 
f a l l s 
w i t h i n the emphasized language. 
F o l l o w i n g 
the 
above-quoted 
d e f i n i t i o n a l 
language 
i n 
A r t i c l e 1.1 appears the f o l l o w i n g p h r a s e : 
" i n c l u d i n g each of 
the f o l l o w i n g a s s e t s 
" N o t h i n g i n t h i s p h r a s i n g 
r e s t r i c t s 
the language p r e c e d i n g 
i t t o o n l y t h o s e i t e m s t h a t f o l l o w .
1 
'"In c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e , the use of a form of the word 
' i n c l u d e ' i s s i g n i f i c a n t , and g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t t o i m p l y 
t h a t 
terms l i s t e d i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r w a r d s 
are an i n e x h a u s t i v e 
l i s t 
of examples, r a t h e r than a bounded s e t of a p p l i c a b l e 
i t e m s . " 
In re Mark Anthony C o n s t r . , 
I n c . , 
886 
F.2d 
1101, 
1106 
(9th 
C i r . 
1989) 
( c i t e d w i t h 
a p p r o v a l 
i n S t a t e 
ex 
r e l . R i l e y v.  
L o r i l l a r d Tobacco Co., 
1 So. 3d 1, 12 
( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ) ; 
see 
a l s o 
Friedman v. P&P, 
LLC 
(In re F r i e d m a n ) , 466 B.R. 
471, 
487 
(9th 
C i r . 
2012) 
("It 
i s a w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d canon 
of 
s t a t u t o r y 
c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t when the word ' i n c l u d e s ' or ' i n c l u d i n g ' i s 
3 
1111280 
I t appears t h a t a p r o p e r a n a l y s i s o f t h i s case c o u l d 
s t o p 
a t t h i s p o i n t , r e s u l t i n g i n a d e c i s i o n i n f a v o r o f Newport. 
For what i t 
i s w o r t h , however, t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s a r e 
among t h o s e l i s t e d i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e " i n c l u d i n g " p h r a s e : 
"(d) t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n t r a c t s , agreements and l e a s e s 
( i n c l u d i n g 
employment 
agreements, 
... 
) t o w h i c h 
[ C l e a r C h a n n e l ] i s 
p a r t y 
( c o l l e c t i v e l y , t h e ' S t a t i o n 
C o n t r a c t s ' ) 
and a l l r i g h t s t h e r e u n d e r ... 
: ( i ) a l l 
c o n t r a c t s , agreements and l e a s e s 
l i s t e d on Schedule 
1.1(d) and ( i i ) a l l o t h e r c o n t r a c t s , agreements and  
l e a s e s t h a t r e l a t e e x c l u s i v e l y t o the o p e r a t i o n o f  
the 
S t a t i o n s 
(Emphasis added.) 
Much o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s y 
i n t h i s 
case 
r e v o l v e s around t h e f a c t t h a t Booth's n o n c o m p e t i t i o n agreement 
was n o t one o f t h e agreements l i s t e d on Schedule 1.1(d). 
Even 
i f one were t o p r o c e e d p a s t t h e a n a l y t i c a l " s t o p p i n g 
p o i n t " 
n o t e d above, 
t h a t 
f a c t would n o t be d i s p o s i t i v e f o r two 
r e a s o n s . 
F i r s t , 
t h e above-quoted 
passage 
from 
s u b s e c t i o n 
(d) 
e x p r e s s l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t s s o l d t o Newport p u r s u a n t 
f o l l o w e d by a l i s t o f examples, t h o s e examples a r e c o n s i d e r e d 
i l l u s t r a t i v e 
r a t h e r than e x h a u s t i v e . " ) ; 
P u e r t o R i c o M a r i t i m e  
S h i p p i n g A u t h . v. I.C.C., 645 F.2d 1102, 1112 n.5 (D.C. C i r . 
1981) 
( n o t i n g t h a t i t 
i s "hornbook law" t h a t a l i s t f o l l o w i n g 
the word " i n c l u d i n g " i s " i l l u s t r a t i v e , n o t e x c l u s i v e " ) ; and 
Bryan A. Garner, A 
D i c t i o n a r y o f Modern 
L e g a l 
Usage 431 
(2d ed. 1995) ( n o t i n g t h a t the term " i n c l u d i n g " " s h o u l d n o t 
be 
used t o i n t r o d u c e an e x h a u s t i v e 
l i s t , f o r 
i t i m p l i e s t h a t t h e 
l i s t i s o n l y 
p a r t i a l " ) . 
4 
1111280 
t o the p u r c h a s e agreement i n c l u d e not o n l y t h o s e c o n t r a c t s 
and 
agreements l i s t e d on Schedule 1.1(d), but a l s o t h o s e d e s c r i b e d 
i n 
c l a u s e 
( i i ) , 
i . e . , " a l l o t h e r 
c o n t r a c t s , agreements 
and 
l e a s e s 
t h a t 
r e l a t e 
e x c l u s i v e l y t o 
the 
o p e r a t i o n 
of 
the 
S t a t i o n s . " Booth's n o n c o m p e t i t i o n agreement f a l l s w i t h i n t h i s 
l a t t e r d e s c r i p t i o n . The f a c t t h a t the d r a f t e r of the p u r c h a s e 
agreement f a i l e d t o i n c l u d e Booth's n o n c o m p e t i t i o n agreement 
on 
Schedule 
1.1(d) 
c a s t s 
doubt 
on 
the 
a c c u r a c y 
of 
a 
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n found e l s e w h e r e i n the p u r c h a s e agreement t h a t 
Schedule 1.1(d) s e t s f o r t h a "complete l i s t of a l l c o n t r a c t s , 
agreements and l e a s e s t h a t r e l a t e e x c l u s i v e l y t o the 
o p e r a t i o n 
of the S t a t i o n s . " 
In f a c t , g i v e n the e x i s t e n c e and n a t u r e 
of 
Booth's n o n c o m p e t i t i o n agreement, the 
u n a s s a i l a b l e 
f a c t i s 
t h a t t h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s s i m p l y i n c o r r e c t . Even assuming 
t h a t we somehow c o u l d i g n o r e the e f f e c t of the p r o v i s i o n s of 
the 
p u r c h a s e 
agreement 
d i s c u s s e d 
a t 
the 
o u t s e t 
of 
t h i s 
a n a l y s i s and i n the p a r a g r a p h t h a t f o l l o w s , t h i s 
c i r c u m s t a n c e 
would, a t b e s t , o n l y c r e a t e an a m b i g u i t y 
as t o the p a r t i e s ' 
i n t e n t . 
Second, 
the 
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 
t h a t 
Schedule 
1.1(d) 
c o n s t i t u t e s 
a 
"complete 
l i s t " 
of 
a l l c o n t r a c t s 
r e l a t i n g 
5 
1111280 
e x c l u s i v e l y t o the o p e r a t i o n 
of the 
t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s i s , 
i t s e l f , not a b s o l u t e . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ends 
w i t h 
two 
e x p l i c i t 
" o t h e r 
t h a n " 
e x c e p t i o n s , 
i . e . , t y p e s 
of 
c o n t r a c t s not n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e d on Schedule 1.1(d). 
Both 
of t h e s e e x c e p t i o n s appear t o d e s c r i b e Booth's n o n c o m p e t i t i o n 
agreement: 
" c o n t r a c t s w h i c h were e n t e r e d 
i n t o i n the 
o r d i n a r y 
c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s 
and 
(I) w h i c h are t e r m i n a b l e 
on 
t h i r t y 
(30) d a y s ' n o t i c e or l e s s w i t h o u t p e n a l t y 
or 
premium, or ( i i ) 
d i d not impose monetary o b l i g a t i o n s 
on [ C l e a r C h a n n e l ] i n 2006, and 
are not 
r e a s o n a b l y 
e x p e c t e d t o impose monetary o b l i g a t i o n s on 
[ C l e a r 
Channel] i n 2007, i n e x c e s s of $250,000 and 
which 
impose no m a t e r i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s on the o p e r a t i o n 
of 
the S t a t i o n s . " 
Based on the f o r e g o i n g , 
I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t from the 
d e c i s i o n by t h i s C o u r t t o d a y t o quash the w r i t of 
c e r t i o r a r i 
t h i s C o u r t p r e v i o u s l y g r a n t e d 
i n t h i s case. 
Shaw, J . , 
c o n c u r s . 
6