Opinion ID: 4016114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Meaning of “Strategic Partner”

Text: Team Systems next argues it is entitled to compensation for introducing FSAI to Phillips & Jordan because Phillips & Jordan became a “strategic partner” of FSAI. The district court stated that “strategic partner” is a “business term meaning a party ‘with which a long-term agreement is reached for sharing of physical and/or intellectual resources in achievement of a common objective.’” Aplt. App. at 165 (quoting http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/strategic-partner.html (last accessed April 28, 2015)). The court further stated that “[a] strategic partnership is ‘a type of contractual alliance between two commercial enterprises that is not a formal legal partnership.’” Id. (quoting http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strategic+partnership (last accessed April 28, 2015)). 8 Team Systems’ second amended complaint alleged only that Phillips & Jordan “entered into a lump sum contract” with FSAI for two phases of the project, which “was essential to the success” of the project. Aplt. App. at 16. As the district court held, this allegation “provides no factual basis from which to conclude that the two entities formed a long-term agreement for sharing of resources or entered into any contractual alliance between enterprises.” Id. at 166. Team Systems disputes this conclusion, arguing for a definition of “strategic partner” that would include any entity FSAI hired in connection with the project. But that would expand the scope of “strategic partner” beyond its common and ordinary meaning and, as FSAI notes, include even a private delivery service. Team Systems failed to state a claim for relief based on the “strategic partner” clause because the allegations in the second amended complaint do not plausibly support a claim that Phillips & Jordan was FSAI’s strategic partner. D. Whether the Engagement Agreement was Ambiguous Finally, Team Systems asserts that the operative terms in the Engagement Agreement are reasonably susceptible of differing meanings, thus rendering the Agreement ambiguous such that a remand is necessary to receive extrinsic evidence. In its post-judgment Rule 59(e) motion, Team Systems tried to offer additional evidence concerning the meaning of the terms “financing” and “strategic partnership.” But the district court rejected that attempt, noting Team Systems had not filed a timely motion “to add factual allegations regarding ambiguity.” Id. at 273. 9 Consequently, the court denied the ambiguity arguments raised for the first time in the Rule 59(e) motion. “We review a denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion.” Kipling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 774 F.3d 1306, 1309 (10th Cir. 2014). A Rule 59(e) motion “is not appropriate to advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id. (ellipsis and internal quotation marks omitted). Team Systems has proffered no reason for not raising these arguments earlier. In fact, in opposing dismissal Team Systems asserted that the Engagement Agreement was “clearly worded.” Aplt. App. at 100. And it failed to assert the term had a technical meaning different than its common and ordinary meaning or to advance a definition of “strategic partnership” that could plausibly be met by participation in a lump sum contract alone. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling.