Opinion ID: 155491
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count VIII-Breach of contract claim for unpaid commissions

Text: 72 Count VIII is a claim brought by SRS against Enterprises only. Enterprises offered to pay $1,000 commissions to CSRs who referred potential Shelby Can Am customers to it if those customers then purchased cars. SRS claimed that it was owed unpaid commissions. Enterprises moved for summary judgment based on the fact that SRS was unable to identify the Shelby purchasers it had referred to Enterprises for which it earned commissions. In response, SRS filed Freeman's affidavit identifying four successful referrals. The district court found that this affidavit contradicted Freeman's deposition testimony and was a sham intended to fabricate a disputed factual issue under Franks v. Nimmo, 796 F.2d 1230, 1237 (10th Cir.1986). It therefore disregarded the affidavit. SRS contends that the affidavit did not necessarily contradict the prior testimony and should not have been disregarded. 73 In Freeman's deposition, after he stated that maybe six of his referrals of potential customers to Enterprises resulted in sales, Freeman testified as follows: 74 Q. Would Enterprises' records show which referrals were made by you? 75 A. Probably not. 76 Q. Where would that record be? 77 A. I don't know that there would be a record. We were told to refer those people to Enterprises and we would get this thousand dollars. 78 Q. Did you keep a record of who you referred to Enterprises? 79 A. I don't know if I have a list. 80 Appellants' App. at 82. The district court interpreted this testimony as Freeman stating that he could not or would not even give any names of customers he claims to have referred to Enterprises. District Court Order and Memorandum of Decision at 23. In contrast, Freeman's subsequent affidavit identifies four successful referrals, including two purchases by SRS. 81 In Franks, the court noted that there was authority for the proposition that in determining whether a material issue of fact exists, an affidavit may not be disregarded because it conflicts with the affiant's prior sworn statements, but concluded that in cases where the affidavit constitutes an attempt to create a sham fact issue, a court may disregard the affidavit. 796 F.2d at 1237. The court stated that the factors relevant to the existence of a sham fact issue include 82 whether the affiant was cross-examined during his earlier testimony, whether the affiant had access to the pertinent evidence at the time of his earlier testimony or whether the affidavit was based on newly discovered evidence, and whether the earlier testimony reflects confusion which the affidavit attempts to explain. 83 Id. 84 Our consideration of SRS's claim of error is constrained, as always, by our standard of review. Like other evidentiary rulings, we review a district court's decision to exclude evidence at the summary judgment stage for abuse of discretion. See Duffee ex rel. Thornton v. Murray Ohio Mfg. Co., 91 F.3d 1410, 1411 (10th Cir.1996); see also Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 894-98, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3191-93, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990) (concluding district court did not abuse discretion in declining to admit affidavits on summary judgment); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 962 (4th Cir.1996); Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1995). We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in finding Freeman's affidavit a sham and excluding it. We therefore affirm its grant of summary judgment on this count.