Court Opinion

ID: 9906342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 20:01:01.522812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:15.751911
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13288    Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 12/01/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13288
                          ____________________

       THE DOUGLAS STEWART COMPANY, INC.,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       HIQO SOLUTIONS, INC.,
                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00101-WTM-CLR
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 22-13288     Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 12/01/2023   Page: 2 of 2

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-13288

       PER CURIAM:
              Plaintiﬀ-Appellant The Douglas Stewart Company, Inc.
       (“DSC”) sued Defendant-Appellee HiQo Solutions, Inc. (“HiQo”)
       for breach of contract under Georgia law, alleging that HiQo
       failed to provide DSC with an “improved and functional” e-
       commerce website in compliance with the parties’ Master Ser-
       vices Agreement (“MSA”). D.E. 1 at 11. Following cross-motions
       for summary judgment, the district court ruled in HiQo’s favor.
       Interpreting the MSA, the court concluded as a matter of law that
       “HiQo never agreed to provide a fully functional website by a
       speciﬁc date, and in fact expressly disclaimed such an obligation.”
       D.E. 109 at 33. DSC timely appealed.
              After reviewing the parties’ briefs, and with the beneﬁt of
       oral argument, we agree with the district court that DSC failed to
       demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether
       HiQo breached its obligations under the MSA. We thus aﬃrm
       based on the district court’s well-reasoned order.
             AFFIRMED.