Opinion ID: 2739046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Meet sales goals and objectives for the

Text: business. Brokerage Agreement § 4. TBG further agreed to assist Alasko with any customer disputes, inquiries or deductions, product problems, product withdrawals or recalls, and collections. Brokerage Agreement § 9A. The Brokerage Agreement does not state TBG will manage any accounts, assume any sort of management role over anything, or seek to secure new accounts. Neither was TBG declared to be a sales management team like Foodmark. And Alasko agreed to pay TBG a 3% broker fee (not a management fee) based on Alasko's net -7- sales to the Sam's Club account. Brokerage Agreement § 7 and Schedule C. This fee, we note, is equal to the 3% broker fee contemplated by Foodmark and Alasko's Agreement. Alasko subsequently renegotiated Foodmark's management fee on the Sam's Club account, and Foodmark ultimately accepted a reduced fee of 2%.5 Alasko began shipping products to Sam's Club in October 2010. It sent Foodmark management fees, calculated from Alasko's sales to Sam's Club, in the months that followed. Meanwhile, private equity firm Catterton Partners acquired a controlling interest in Alasko in July 2010. At the request of the new owners, Foodmark ceased its work--for the most part--while the company reconsidered its United States sales strategy.6 On October 17, 2011, Alasko informed Foodmark it had opted, pursuant to Section 11, to terminate the Agreement as of January 15, 2012. Alasko did not say that Foodmark had failed to perform any of its contractual obligations, nor did it mention Section 13's provisions governing termination for cause. Alasko continued to pay Foodmark's management fee for the Sam's Club account through the end of their relationship. Payments 5 Although the parties do not agree on the reasoning behind this reduction, the disagreement is immaterial because it is uncontested that Alasko continued to pay Foodmark a management fee (albeit a reduced one) with respect to the Sam's Club account, even after the renegotiation. 6 Foodmark asserts it continued to present Alasko with new business opportunities, a claim to which Alasko has not responded. -8- between the notice of termination and January 15, 2012, amounted to $56,329.72. Over the entire life of the Agreement, Alasko paid Foodmark a total of $205,509.00 in management fees, all of which related to the Sam's Club account. After receiving the notice of termination, Foodmark demanded payment of the Non-Renewal Termination Fee contemplated by Section 10.f, but Alasko refused. 3. The Litigation Unwilling to surrender, Foodmark filed a two-count complaint in Massachusetts state court. Count 1 alleged that Alasko's refusal to pay the termination fee constituted a breach of the Agreement and of its covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Count 2 requested relief under the business-to-business provisions of Massachusetts's consumer protection statute. Alasko removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The parties proceeded to bombard the district judge with a flurry of dispositive motions and cross-motions. Alasko sought summary judgment on all counts, arguing that its termination of the Agreement in the middle of a three-year term pursuant to Section 11 did not trigger its obligation to pay a termination fee. Foodmark returned fire with its own crossmotion, asserting that regardless of whether Alasko ended the Agreement during or at the end of a term, Foodmark was entitled to a termination fee because Alasko had opted not to renew the -9- Agreement. The district court--whose reasoning is not germane here--sided with Foodmark and permitted the parties to conduct limited discovery on damages. Foodmark filed a follow-up summary judgment motion, this time seeking $1,101,275.45 in damages based on Alasko's sales to Sam's Club during the final thirteen weeks of the Agreement. Alasko resisted, arguing Foodmark was not entitled to anything because it did not actually manage the Sam's Club account, as the Agreement required. The district court rejected Alasko's arguments, found that Foodmark did manage the Sam's Club account, and entered judgment awarding Foodmark $1,101,275.45. Refusing to admit defeat, Alasko's timely appeal followed.7 7 We note a jurisdictional wrinkle not mentioned by the parties. Foodmark's summary judgment motions raised only the first count of its two-count complaint. The district court's judgment, however, resolved all questions of liability and damages, and imposed pre- and post-judgment interest. This disposed of the case in its entirety and left nothing further for the district court to do. For its part, Foodmark affirmatively relied on the judgment's finality by applying for a writ of execution. There is no doubt that the district court entered final judgment in Foodmark's favor. See In re Forstner Chain Corp., 177 F.2d 572, 576 (1st Cir. 1949) (A final judgment is the concluding judicial act or pronouncement of the court disposing of the matter before it . . . .); see also Hickey v. Duffy, 827 F.2d 234, 237-38 (7th Cir. 1987) (finding jurisdiction over an appeal where the district court believe[d] a particular ruling ended the litigation). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (limiting our appellate jurisdiction to final decisions of the district courts). -10-