Court Opinion

ID: 9397903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 21:01:47.643126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.594309
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1494       Doc: 38        Filed: 05/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 20-1494

        MIKE BENDFELDT; WINDOW WORLD - CEDAR RAPIDS, INC.; WINDOW
        WORLD - GRAND ISLAND, INC.; WINDOW WORLD - MASON CITY, INC.;
        WINDOW WORLD - NORTH DAKOTA, INC.; WINDOW WORLD -
        PORTLAND, INC.; WINDOW WORLD - QUAD CITIES, INC.; WINDOW
        WORLD - SEATTLE, INC.; W.O.W, INC.; WINDOW WORLD - LINCOLN,
        INC.; WINDOW WORLD - OMAHA, INC.; WINDOW WORLD - SOUTH
        DAKOTA, INC.; WINDOW WORLD - IOWA, INC.; WINDOW WORLD OF
        WICHITA, INC.,

                             Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                      and

        BETTY MUHR-BENDFELDT,

                             Plaintiff,

                      v.

        WINDOW WORLD, INC., a North Carolina corporation,

                             Defendant - Appellee,

                      and

        ASSOCIATED MATERIALS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

                             Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00039-KDB-DCK)
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1494      Doc: 38         Filed: 05/25/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        Submitted: March 27, 2023                                         Decided: May 25, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jonathan E. Fortman, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC,
        Florissant, Missouri, for Appellants. Michael T. Medford, Judson A. Welborn, Natalie M.
        Rice, Jessica B. Vickers, MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER, P.A., Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1494         Doc: 38          Filed: 05/25/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Mike Bendfeldt and thirteen dissolved Nebraska corporations formerly owned and

        operated by Bendfeldt (the “Plaintiff corporations”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), appeal the

        district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Window World,

        Inc., on Plaintiffs’ claims of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and breach of

        contract. Under the terms of their licensing agreements, each Plaintiff corporation sold and

        installed exterior home products, using the Window World brand, in designated, exclusive

        trade areas. Between 2011 and 2013, most Plaintiff corporations entered asset purchase

        agreements (“APAs”) with third-party buyers, through which they explicitly sold “[a]ll

        business and marketing records . . . and other business records used in the Business, and

        all permits and licenses necessary to the operation of the Business”; “Seller’s rights in all

        oral or written contracts, agreements, and indicia of authority . . . to conduct the operations

        of the Business”; and “[a]ll intangible rights and property of Seller.” (See, e.g., J.A. 819-

        20). 1 Because the instant litigation was not initiated until 2015, the district court found that

        Plaintiffs did not own the claims they sought to raise. The district court noted that the store

        in one territory—Fargo, North Dakota—was closed rather than sold and, therefore, had not

        executed an APA. As to this store, the district court concluded that, because of the store’s

               1
                   “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.

                                                         3
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1494       Doc: 38          Filed: 05/25/2023     Pg: 4 of 5

        minimal sales prior to closing, a standalone claim from that store was plainly insufficient

        to support federal diversity jurisdiction. 2

               On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred by entering summary

        judgment on their claims because Bendfeldt did not sign the APAs in his individual

        capacity and, therefore, has not sold his individual claims against Window World. 3 They

        also argue that the district court failed to address a breach of contract claim arising from a

        purported oral contract concerning a trade area in Bismarck, North Dakota. Finding no

        reversible error, we affirm.

               We first address Plaintiffs’ assertion that the district court failed to consider one of

        their claims. “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims

        as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation

        marks omitted). However, “an order that fails to explicitly address or dispose of all claims

        presented to the court may nevertheless qualify as a final, appealable order if the language

        used in the order is calculated to conclude all the claims before the district court.” Martin

        v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 246 (4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). Here, the district court referenced

        the relevant section of Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint in concluding that all of

               2
                 Plaintiffs have forfeited review of this issue by failing to take more than a “passing
        shot at” it in their brief. See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th
        Cir. 2017).
               3
                Plaintiffs also argue—for the first time on appeal—that it is unclear which territory
        was sold in each APA. Absent exceptional circumstances, which are not present here, we
        do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Tarashuk v. Givens, 53 F.4th 154,
        167 (4th Cir. 2022).

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1494       Doc: 38         Filed: 05/25/2023    Pg: 5 of 5

        Plaintiffs’ claims arose from alleged contractual or legal duties owed to Window World

        licensees/franchisees. Moreover, the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs had sold

        their claims to third parties clearly encompassed all of Plaintiffs’ claims—including the

        alleged breach of contract related to the Bismarck territory. Accordingly, the district

        court’s order resolved all of Plaintiffs’ claims.

               Turning to the merits, “[w]e review a district court’s decision to grant summary

        judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court, and viewing all

        facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

        party.” Carter v. Fleming, 879 F.3d 132, 139 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine

        dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

        Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[A] factual dispute is genuine only where the non-movant’s version

        is supported by sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find in its favor.”

        Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc., 790 F.3d 532, 540 (4th

        Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Upon review of the record, we discern no reversible error in the district court’s

        determination that Plaintiffs did not own the claims they sought to raise. We therefore

        affirm the district court’s order. Bendfeldt v. Window World, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00039-

        KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                       5