Opinion ID: 52313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: summary judgment on the fraud claim

Text: This Court reviews de novo the magistrate judge's grant of summary judgment to Alcoa on the Hobbses' fraud claim. Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n of America, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Clark v. America's Favorite Chicken Co., 110 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cir.1997). The Hobbses argue that Alcoa misrepresented the likelihood of acquiring the CPS tract, thereby fraudulently inducing them to agree to the sole and absolute discretion language in the settlement agreement. This argument fails, however, because any alleged misrepresentation is barred by the settlement agreement's integration clause. See Armstrong v. Am. Home Shield Corp., 333 F.3d 566, 571 (5th Cir.2003) (holding that an integration clause stating that it supercede[d] all existing agreements served to bar a previous representation); U.S. Quest Ltd. v. Kimmons, 228 F.3d 399, 403 (5th Cir.2000) (holding that an integration clause superceding all prior agreements, communications or understandings was a valid disclaimer of reliance upon representations). The integration clause prevents the Hobbses from establishing justifiable reliance, a required element of a fraudulent inducement claim. [1] Therefore, the magistrate judge's grant of summary judgment for Alcoa is affirmed.