Opinion ID: 162593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the alleged message handling system oral agreement

Text: 53 Lantec and Lantec Brazil next argue Novell breached an oral agreement regarding Messaging Handling System. According to the verified complaint, Novell agreed to provide: 54 (1) increased marketplace exposure; (2) approval and promotion of the manufacturer's messaging applications; (3) competitive advantages in the messaging applications marketplace because of association with NetWare; (4) opportunity for direct input to Novell concerning the growth and development direction of [Message Handling System]; (5) heavy support and promotion of [Message Handling System] as the dominant [Network Operating System] messaging [transport agent] and promotion of [Message Handling System] for many years to come; and (6) freedom from the fear or competition with the [network operating system] or messaging [transport agent] manufacturer — Novell. 55 In return, Lantec and Lantec Brazil contend they agreed to (1) join in and actively (but not financially) support the [Message Handling System] Alliance; (2) convert existing products to [Message Handling System]; (3) migrate exclusively to the [Message Handling System] engine for development of future messaging applications; and (4) promote NetWare as the [Network Operating System] of choice for all messaging applications. They believe Novell broke these promises by merging with WordPerfect, manufacturing GroupWise, and failing to develop Message Handling System and Global Message Handling System after the merger. 56 The district court granted Novell's motion for summary judgment. The court stated Lantec and Lantec Brazil rely exclusively upon the allegations of their Verified Amended Complaint to show the existence and terms of the alleged [Message Handling System] oral agreement. The court concluded Lantec and Lantec Brazil had not produced specific evidence to show the existence of the alleged oral [Message Handling System] Agreement. 57 Unsatisfied, Lantec and Lantec Brazil filed a motion for reconsideration arguing they should have been allowed to rely on their verified complaint at the summary judgment stage. In ruling on the motion, the court recognized that verified complaints can sometimes be used to avoid summary judgment. The district court, however, determined the relevant paragraphs of the complaint could not be treated as an affidavit because they did not relate to facts within Mr. Thoillier's personal knowledge. The court further stated the factual allegations relied upon for this motion ... are conclusory.... For example, the [complaint] lack[s] specific details of who made the alleged promises on behalf of Novell. For these reasons, the district court also denied the motion for reconsideration. 58 On appeal, Lantec and Lantec Brazil argue the district court erred in refusing to consider the averments in their amended verified complaint as evidence of the contract. They believe the verified complaint shows genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. 59 [W]e review a district court's decision to exclude evidence at the summary judgment stage for abuse of discretion. Sports Racing Servs., 131 F.3d at 894. Under this standard, we will not disturb a district court's ruling unless [we have] a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances. Ortiz, 804 F.2d at 1164 n. 2. 60 A district court may treat a verified complaint as an affidavit for purposes of summary judgment if it satisfies the standards for affidavits set out in Rule 56(e). Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 792 (10th Cir.1988). According to Rule 56(e), an affidavit must be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Furthermore, a district court need not treat a verified complaint as an affidavit if the allegations contained in the pleading are merely conclusory. Conaway, 853 F.2d at 793. See Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671-72 (10th Cir.1998) (The conclusory allegation in Plaintiff's complaint, although verified, are of ... little help in carrying her burden under Rule 56(e).); Sheinkopf v. Stone, 927 F.2d 1259, 1262 (1st Cir.1991) (holding a trial court must disregard conclusory allegations in a verified complaint when considering a motion for summary judgment). 61 We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the amended verified complaint as an affidavit for summary judgment purposes. We agree the allegations in the complaint were conclusory and the district court was, therefore, free to disregard these allegations. This case is similar to Mitchael v. Intracorp, Inc., 179 F.3d 847 (10th Cir.1999), where we stated an affidavit was conclusory, vague, and/or lacking in foundation and was insufficient to support the conclusion an agreement had been formed. Id. at 855 n. 9. In Mitchael, the affiant fail[ed] to state how he learned of [the] agreement, who exactly represented the other ... companies, how he could speak for what they wanted or needed, when this agreement or understanding was formed, and how it was to operate. Id. Here, Mr. Thoillier's averments in the complaint do not reveal who represented Novell in making the oral contract. He did not state where or how the agreement was communicated and explains only that the agreement was reached in approximately June 1993. With respect to the formation of the alleged Message Handling System oral contract, the amended verified complaint did little more than state a legal conclusion as to the terms of the contract. Thus, we hold the district court was within the bounds of permissible choice in concluding the verified complaint was conclusory and refusing to consider the complaint as an affidavit. 62 Lantec and Lantec Brazil do not direct us to portions of the record, other than their verified complaint, to support the alleged breach of the Message Handling System oral contract. This is so even though Mr. Thoillier provided an extensive deposition and a supplemental affidavit. Because Lantec and Lantec Brazil have not provided record citations, we need not sift through the record in an attempt to find evidence of the alleged oral contract. See Gross v. Burggraf Constr. Co., 53 F.3d 1531, 1546 (10th Cir.1995). For these reasons, the breach of the Message Handling System oral contract claim fails.