Opinion ID: 2996940
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tranzact’s Breach of Contract Claim

Text: Tranzact sought a refund of all monies paid to the advisors for work conducted under the agreement. However, the district court determined sua sponte that “all contractual obligations of the parties have been satisfied under the Agreement, and no further monies or actions are due by either side.” Tranzact complains that the district court acted improperly by denying Tranzact notice and an opportunity to oppose summary judgment. Nos. 01-3685 & 01-3787 13 We have cautioned district courts to provide parties with notice and a fair opportunity to present evidence when they are considering entering judgment sua sponte. See, e.g., S. Ill. Riverboat Casino Cruise, Inc. v. Triangle Insulation & Sheet Metal Co., 302 F.3d 667, 678 (7th Cir. 2002). Nevertheless, a sua sponte judgment may be affirmed if the complaining party cannot show on appeal that it was deprived of the opportunity to present a viable claim. Id. (“see[ing] no reason to remand the case because [the plaintiff] was given a full opportunity to make its argument on appeal”); see also Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 201 F.3d 134, 139-41 (2d Cir. 2000) (finding no reversible error when the district court granted judgment sua sponte despite lack of prior notice); cf. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., LLC v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local Union 150, AFL-CIO, 335 F.3d 643, 649-50 (7th Cir. 2003) (reversing sua sponte judgment because record did not support district court’s conclusions and plaintiff would have introduced additional evidence); Aviles v. Cornell Forge Co., 183 F.3d 598, 606 (7th Cir. 1999) (reversing sua sponte judgment because plaintiff “presented enough evidence” to establish a viable claim). Tranzact has failed to show that it has a viable claim on appeal. In its fact section, Tranzact stated only that “Defendants failed to perform all services required under the Agreement,” followed by a string-cite to the record. It also failed to flesh out the merits of the claim in the page and a half that it devoted to this issue in its argument section.7 We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment in the advisors’ favor. 7 Moreover, our own review of the record casts no doubt on the district court’s conclusion that the advisors fulfilled all of their duties as set forth in the agreement. 14 Nos. 01-3685 & 01-3787