Opinion ID: 4524974
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural History of Present Litigation

Text: On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed this case in the State Court of Henry County, Georgia, seeking to undo the Menchions’ settlement of their debt on the underlying note and to recover the $150,000 collected on the Menchion account by Best Service. Best Service removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.1 As to the Menchions, Plaintiff sought payment of the entirety of their original note, notwithstanding the fact that the state court had issued a judgment and that the Menchions had settled any obligation they owed under that note. To that end, Plaintiff filed two claims against the Menchions: one claim seeking full payment of the original note and a second claim asking the district court to set aside the state court judgment pursuant to which the Menchions had paid Best Service $150,000 in settlement of that judgment. Plaintiff sued Best Service for tortious interference, arguing that by inducing the Menchions to settle their obligation on the note, Best Service had induced them to breach their contractual obligations to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued both 1 We have twice remanded to the district court the question whether the parties were completely diverse, which is necessary to satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Following the second remand, the parties engaged in the necessary discovery and demonstrated to the district court that there was complete diversity. We are likewise satisfied that complete diversity exists. 8 Case: 16-10380 Date Filed: 04/14/2020 Page: 9 of 24 Best Service and Prime Asset for “money had and received,” alleging that these two entities should remit to Plaintiff all money they received from the Menchions in settlement of the note. Plaintiff further claimed that Prime Asset had breached its contract with Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a motion asking the district court to grant it summary judgment on some of its claims, including its claim on the note against the Menchions, its claim for money had and received against Best Service and Prime Asset, its breach of contract claim against Prime Asset, and its claim to set aside the state court judgment. The Menchions and Best Service filed a joint motion seeking summary judgment as to all claims made against them. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Best Service and the Menchions as to all of Plaintiff’s claims against them; it denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant Prime Asset did not file a motion for summary judgment. As to the Menchions, the court concluded that they were protected by the doctrine of res judicata, as the state court judgment resolved the claims against them based on their default on the home-equity loan note. As to the claim for tortious interference against defendant Best Service, the court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to satisfy the elements of such a claim. As to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim against defendant Prime Asset, the court agreed that, because Prime Asset had assigned this account to Best Service prior to the sale of its 9 Case: 16-10380 Date Filed: 04/14/2020 Page: 10 of 24 portfolio to Plaintiff, Prime Asset had breached its warranty that the Menchions’ account was unencumbered. Nevertheless, the court noted, the contract provided that the remedy for such a breach was the repurchase of the account by Prime Asset at the contractual purchase price of $762.68. Given that ruling, Plaintiff’s claim against Prime Asset and Best Service “for money had and received”—that is, a claim requesting that these two defendants remit to Plaintiff the money that they collected from the Menchions—likewise failed. The court noted that this claim required Plaintiff to prove that the defendants have money to which Plaintiff is entitled and which the defendants should not, in good conscience, be entitled to keep. Those elements were not satisfied here because, given its prior assignment of that account to Best Service, Section 6 of the agreement required only that Prime Asset repurchase the Menchion account from Plaintiff. Further, Best Service’s agreement with Prime Asset when the latter assigned the Menchion account to Best Service expressly allowed the latter to retain $60,000 of the money it had collected. Because Plaintiff’s claims against Prime Asset remained pending—as the latter had not filed a motion for summary judgment—there was no final judgment from which Plaintiff could appeal. Nevertheless, wishing to appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Best Service and the Menchions, Plaintiff sought to file an interlocutory appeal as to these rulings. To accomplish this, 10 Case: 16-10380 Date Filed: 04/14/2020 Page: 11 of 24 Plaintiff filed a motion asking the district court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), rendering as final the court’s grant of summary judgment to the Menchions and Best Service. The district court granted Plaintiff’s motion and entered final judgment for Best Service and the Menchions on Plaintiff’s claims against these two defendants. Plaintiff timely appealed, and we now consider its appeal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Best Service and the Menchions.