Opinion ID: 2709451
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Against Health and Hospital

Text: We now turn to Citizens’ breach of contract claim against Health and Hospital. Citizens argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment by overlooking disputed issues of material fact. We find the plain text of the co-applicant agreement unambiguously permitted Health and Hospital to relinquish the grant when the contract expired. The district 16 No. 12-3924 court therefore did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Health and Hospital. The co-applicant agreement makes clear that Health and Hospital was the party responsible for administering the section 330 grant. The provisions of the agreement that relate to the grant provided that Health and Hospital was to “Receive, manage, and disburse” the grant funds. And Health and Hospital was obligated to “ensure that [Citizens] receives Section 330 grant funds for current month costs.” In sum, the agreement provided that Health and Hospital was responsible for securing and disbursing the grant funds to Citizens every month. The agreement did not obligate Health and Hospital to disburse funds over the entire course of the grant. The contractual obligation lasted for only the duration of the contract. When the contract expired, so did Health and Hospital’s obligation. The contract also imposed no obligation on either party to renew (or attempt to renew) the contract when it expired. The terms on the duration of the agreement are clear. Section 19.1.1 provided that the “Agreement shall be in effect March 1, 2011 – February 28, 2012.” And section 19.1.2 provided that the agreement may be renewed, but renewal would have required a written offer by one party and a written acceptance by the other. No provision in the contract required the parties to renew the agreement or even to hold discussions before declining to renew. If the agreement was not renewed, section 19.2.1 provided that the agreement “shall terminate immediately … .” When the agreement terminated, so did the parties’ obligations, including Health and Hospital’s obligation to disburse the grant funds to Citizens. Thus the contract did not No. 12-3924 17 prohibit Health and Hospital from declining to renew the contract or from relinquishing the grant when the agreement expired on February 28, 2012. The undisputed facts thus show that Health and Hospital did not breach the contract when it relinquished the grant. Citizens also suggests that Health and Hospital breached the contract by failing to mediate the dispute that led it to decline to renew the contract and relinquish the grant. Article 8 of the contract provided that in the event of a dispute, “the Parties shall attempt formal mediation, if they mutually agree to do so.” Citizens suggests that once the parties began mediation with HRSA, there was an obligation to complete it before Health and Hospital could terminate the grant. Quite apart from other problems with this argument, the issue became moot when the contract expired. Citizens does not contend that the alleged failure to mediate caused it injury beyond the termination of the grant, something that we have already concluded Health and Hospital was within its rights to do. Once the agreement expired, Health and Hospital was free to relinquish the grant regardless of any arguable duty to mediate. The contract did not create a duty to mediate before declining to renew the agreement; Health and Hospital simply exercised its right not to renew the contract. Because the relevant language of the contract is clear, no disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of Health and Hospital. Though Citizens makes a rather barebones assertion that certain affidavits in the record reveal conflicting accounts of the parties’ expectations about the grant, the relevant terms of the contract are so clear that we need not wade into such extrinsic evidence indicating the 18 No. 12-3924 parties’ understandings of the agreement. See Louis & Karen Metro Family, LLC v. Lawrenceburg Conservancy Dist., 616 F.3d 618, 622 (7th Cir. 2010) (applying Indiana law; extrinsic evidence not admissible when contract is unambiguous). For this same reason, there was no reason for the district court to grant Citizens leave to take additional depositions. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.