Court Opinion

ID: 9442109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:34:09.385865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:56.269307
License: Public Domain

CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The only issue presented is whether the trade names “The SHOE DEPT.” and “SHOE SHOW” are substantially similar within the context of the parties’ lease agreement. The district court’s well-reasoned memorandum opinion and order concluded that “SHOE SHOW” and “The SHOE DEPT.” are substantially similar trade names within the meaning of the lease agreement, and therefore that Shoe Show breached its contract with Almeda Mall when it abandoned its store in the Almeda Mall and ceased paying rent prior to the end of the lease term.
The district court concluded, and all parties agree, that the phrase “substantially similar trade name” is unambiguous. The dispute turns on the differing viewpoints employed to parse the language. For essentially the reasons given by the district court, I would affirm the summary judgment. Accordingly, I dissent from the majority opinion.