Opinion ID: 3062137
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Basic Research, L.L.C. (“Basic”) advertised its products on television networks owned by Rainbow Media Holdings, Inc. (“Rainbow”) through an advertising agency called Icebox Advertising, Inc. (“Icebox”). Although Basic paid Icebox for the ads, Icebox failed to pass some of those payments on to Rainbow. Icebox subsequently filed for bankruptcy. Rainbow was able to recoup a portion of what it was owed for Basic advertising from Icebox’s bankruptcy estate and sought the remainder from Basic based on theories of, inter alia, agency and unjust enrichment. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Rainbow’s motion and denied Basic’s motion, concluding Basic was liable under both theories. The district court erred. Rainbow failed to come forward with sufficient evidence that Icebox, as Basic’s agent, had actual authority to purchase ads from Rainbow on Basic’s credit. Rainbow also failed to come forward with sufficient evidence that Basic was unjustly enriched when it retained the benefit of the advertising even though Rainbow was not paid for some of the ads. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we therefore reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Rainbow and order on remand that summary judgment be entered for Basic on Rainbow’s agency and unjust enrichment claims. -2-