Opinion ID: 168618
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: M r. Leonard, doing business as Aetna M ortgage Consultants, worked as marketing director, an independent contractor position, for Sunset M ortgage recruiting persons to establish Sunset M ortgage branch offices. M r. Leonard’s and Sunset M ortgage’s duties and obligations were set forth in an Independent Contractor Agreement (Agreement). Under the terms of that Agreement, M r. Leonard received commissions based on the productivity of the branches. The Agreement set forth provisions for terminating the Agreement with or 1 The district court denied the Leonard Parties’ claim for death benefits. By failing to file a cross-appeal, the Leonard Parties have not preserved that claim. See M ontgomery v. City of Ardm ore, 365 F.3d 926, 944 (10th Cir. 2004) (requiring cross-appeal where appellee seeks to enlarge own rights or lessen rights of adversary); Trigalet v. Young, 54 F.3d 645, 647 n.3 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting that where plaintiffs did not cross-appeal on issue, this court lacked jurisdiction to consider district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on that issue). -2- without cause. Aplt. App. at 80-81. If Sunset M ortgage terminated without cause, it was obligated to pay M r. Leonard commissions for twelve months. If it terminated with cause, “all compensation . . . terminate[d] and cease[d] to accrue.” Id. at 81. The Agreement defined “cause” to include “willful violation of any Sunset policy.” Id. Also, the Agreement set forth confidentiality provisions: It is understood and agreed by [Leonard], as a condition of the payment of fees to [Leonard], that the nature of Sunset’s business . . . require[s] confidentiality be maintained throughout the process, and therefore, [Leonard] agrees as follows: (a) [Leonard] understands and agrees that all conversations, records, correspondence, files, customer and supplier lists, data and other information pertaining to or concerning Sunset, its affiliates, and their customers and suppliers are confidential information, and therefore, during the term of this agreement and for a period of two (2) years thereafter, [Leonard] shall not divulge or communicate any such confidential information to any person or organization without the express written authorization of Sunset. [Leonard] agrees that, upon the termination of this agreement, he/she will immediately surrender to Sunset any and all files, memoranda, forms, customer and supplier lists, other business service data and everything in his/her possession pertaining to Sunset and/or its affiliates and their businesses, it being distinctly understood that all such lists, books and records and any copies thereof, whether prepared by [Leonard] or by others, are the property of Sunset; (b) [Leonard] shall disclose information to those persons who have a need to receive information and that such disclosure shall be limited to only so much of the information as is necessary for the performance of [Leonard’s] services; and (c) Disclosure of any such confidential information shall require the express written consent of Sunset. -3- Id. at 84-85. In July 2002, Sunset M ortgage exercised its right to terminate the Agreement without cause. By doing so, it was obligated under the Agreement to pay M r. Leonard commissions for twelve months after termination. After making six payments, Sunset M ortgage determined that M r. Leonard had violated the confidentiality provisions and breached the Agreement by maintaining a website under the domain name www.sunsetmortage.biz, w hich disseminated allegedly confidential proprietary information both before and after termination of the Agreement. On January 31, 2003, Sunset M ortgage sent a letter to M r. Leonard, who had passed away on January 19, stating that it had suspended any of its requirements under the Agreement and that he should “cease and desist” disseminating its proprietary information through the website within ten days. Id. at 125. After Sunset M ortgage denied the Leonard Parties’ requests for the remaining six commission payments, they brought suit in Utah state court alleging that Sunset M ortgage breached the Agreement when it failed to make the remaining six payments. Sunset M ortgage removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and defended, in part and as relevant now, on the ground that M r. Leonard did not perform all of his obligations under the Agreement and had materially breached the confidentiality provision of the Agreement. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district -4- court granted the Leonard Parties’ motion for summary judgment, directing that Sunset M ortgage make the six remaining payments, totaling $77,088.43, plus pre- and post-judgment interest and costs. The court denied Sunset M ortgage’s motion for summary judgment. Sunset M ortgage appealed. (Appeal No. 04-4310.) Thereafter, the Leonard Parties filed a motion for attorney’s fees. The district court granted the motion in the amount of $39,620.00. Sunset M ortgage again appealed. (Appeal No. 05-4116.)