Opinion ID: 6346156
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FA contracts to which Ottemann was a party

Text: Ottemann also alleges that the Order breached “Sections 2 and 6 of the Field Agent Agreements signed by [Ottemann]” in his capacity as a GA. Ottemann does not specify how the Order breached Section 2 of the FA contract, which allows the GA to “change or revoke the assignment of councils [assigned to an FA] in accordance with guidelines established by the 9 Case: 21-30138 Document: 00516340925 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/02/2022 No. 21-30138 Order.” Ottemann might be arguing that this provision allowed him to terminate FAs at will as a GA. This would necessarily involve “changing or revoking the assignment of councils” in the process. Such an interpretation would exceed the scope of authority delegated to him by the contract. Because Ottemann did not specifically allege that he sought to change the council assignments for his FAs and was stymied in this pursuit by the Order, we hold that he has not alleged a plausible breach pertaining to Section 2 of the FA contracts. Ottemann makes more concrete allegations pertaining to a breach of Section 6 of the FA contracts. Section 6(c) sets out the guidelines regarding an FA’s draw. It states that the FA may receive a draw “in an amount to be determined by the General Agent and the Order.” In his complaint, Ottemann alleges that the Order breached the “Field Agent Agreements where Plaintiff was a party” by not allowing Ottemann to “set[] the amount of [his] Field Agents’ draws.” Specifically, Ottemann alleges that he had no input into the amount of the draws. In his complaint, Ottemann alleges that “Defendant became the sole decisionmaker regarding hiring and terminating Field Agents and setting the amount of their draws.” The contract is ambiguous as to the balance of the power sharing between the Order and Ottemann. If one reads the contract to mean that both the GA and the Order must agree to the amount of an FA draw, but the Order in fact was “the sole decisionmaker,” Ottemann has alleged a plausible breach. If, instead, the Order were permitted to override Ottemann’s input, there would be no breach of contract. The text of the contract does not clearly demarcate the division of power envisioned by the parties, and resolving this dispute precipitates a question of fact which cannot be resolved as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss. Because Ottemann plausibly alleges that the Order increased his staff for its own benefit in bad faith, his claim for breach of the duty of good 10 Case: 21-30138 Document: 00516340925 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/02/2022 No. 21-30138 faith and fair dealing regarding Section 6 of the FA contracts also survives the motion to dismiss stage.