Opinion ID: 2708406
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Entity Theory

Text: Spitz’s entity theory comes in two flavors: either Proven Winners was a member of a joint venture (“the PWJV”) along with its three members, such that Euro’s activities could bind No. 13-3084 9 Proven Winners; or Euro and/or Amerinova were the agents of Proven Winners and could thus bind it. Spitz first alleges that Proven Winners, Euro, Four Star, and Pleasant View Gardens were part of a joint venture—that is, the three members of Proven Winners, LLC turned around and formed a joint venture with the LLC they created to “secure, develop and bring new plant programs … into [Proven Winners].” If Euro and Proven Winners were part of the same joint venture, the argument goes, an action by Euro (such as contracting with Spitz) could then also bind Proven Winners. This is theoretically possible, as an LLC is a legal entity separate from its members. Peabody-Waterside Dev., LLC. v. Islands of Waterside, LLC, 995 N.E.2d 1021, 1024 (Ill. App. 2013). Spitz says her evidence that the Proven Winners members (i.e., Euro, Four Star, and Pleasant View Gardens) work together with Proven Winners pursuant to an “established procedure” to develop plant programs required the district court to infer that the Proven Winners members were part of a joint venture with Proven Winners itself. But at the summary judgment phase, we make only reasonable inferences, not every conceivable one. Hannemann v. S. Door Cnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 751 (7th Cir. 2012). Proven Winners’ operating agreement provides that its members will, inter alia, “collectively identify, trial, market, promote, and/or provide vigorous, disease-free floricultural crops.” This is substantially identical to the alleged purpose of the PWJV. The fact that Proven Winners conducted business described in its operating agreement is “too thin a reed” on which to base the inference that the PWJV existed. McCann v. Iroquois Hosp. Corp., 622 F.3d 745, 754 (7th Cir. 2010). 10 No. 13-3084 Having discarded Spitz’s joint venture argument, we address her argument that Euro/Amerinova was an agent of Proven Winners. She argued before the district court that Amerinova and Euro were one and the same, and that Euro/Amerinova was an agent of Proven Winners and could thus bind it to a contract with Spitz. Assuming as true for the moment that Euro and Amerinova are a single entity, Spitz points to no facts in her briefing for this court that would lead us to believe Euro/Amerinova acted as an agent of Proven Winners. She merely incorporates by reference arguments made before the district court. This is insufficient to preserve an argument for appellate review; “[a] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.” DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999). We decline to address this argument further. Related to this argument is Spitz’s jumbled “alter ego” argument. Before the district court, Spitz tried to incorporate by reference “the law on Alter Ego cited by Defendants,” apparently in an attempt to save space in her filing. But the “law on Alter Ego” the defendants cited described the requirements for piercing the corporate veil. Spitz has made no veilpiercing arguments on appeal. The cases she cites relate to whether Schneider had the authority to bind Euro or Proven Winners, so we will treat her “alter ego” argument as one in support of her agency theory.