McRann v. United International Holdings, Inc. , 61 F. App'x 563 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    MAR 18 2003
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    __________________________                    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    ROBERT G. McRANN,
    Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant - Appellant,
    v.                                                              No. 01-1411
    (D. Colo.)
    UNITED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.;                        (D.Ct. No. 98-N-895)
    UIH ASIA PACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
    Defendants-Counter-Claimants - Appellees.
    UNITED AND PHILLIPS COMMUNICATIONS
    B.V.; MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND
    TELEGRAPH, INC., n/k/a US WEST, INC.,
    Defendants.
    _______________________________
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Richard G. Sander of Bostrom Sands & Sander, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for
    Appellant.
    Ann B. Frick (N. Reid Neureiter with her on the brief) of Jacobs Chase Frick
    Kleinkopf & Kelley LLC, Denver, Colorado, for Appellees.
    Before HENRY, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge, and LUCERO,
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
    citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
    the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    Circuit Judge.
    Mr. Robert McRann appeals a district court decision dismissing on
    summary judgment his breach of contract and misrepresentation claims against
    United International Holdings, Inc. and UIH Asia Pacific Communications, Inc.
    (collectively “United”). We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    and affirm.
    Background
    United, through subsidiaries and affiliates, operates subscription television
    companies. It hired Mr. McRann to serve as managing director of Austar, an
    Australian subsidiary. Roughly two years after he began working at Austar, Mr.
    McRann interviewed with United for a management position at another
    subsidiary, A-2000 Holding NV (“A-2000”). A-2000 is located in Amsterdam,
    The Netherlands. United offered Mr. McRann the position, and they began
    negotiating the terms of an A-2000 employment agreement.
    Once United offered him the position at A-2000, Mr. McRann began
    negotiating the termination and buy out of his Austar employment agreement.
    These negotiations culminated in Mr. McRann signing a release agreement
    -2-
    terminating his Austar employment. Under the release agreement, Mr. McRann
    released all claims against United “related in any way” to his Austar employment
    and termination for consideration worth up to $1,162,500. United was to pay the
    consideration in two separate payments. Mr. McRann received and cashed the
    first payment of $387,500. 1
    Even after Mr. McRann signed the Austar release agreement, negotiations
    continued between Mr. McRann and United concerning the terms of his A-2000
    employment agreement. Prior to seeing a draft or executing an employment
    agreement, Mr. McRann moved to Amsterdam and began working at A-2000.
    Once at A-2000, Mr. McRann expressed “disappointment” over the parties’
    failure to execute a written employment agreement. He also voiced concerns
    about the governance and organizational structure of A-2000. Mr. McRann’s
    relationship with the A-2000 managing director deteriorated. About five months
    after he arrived in Amsterdam, United terminated Mr. McRann’s A-2000
    employment.
    1
    We are aware of other proceedings centered around the release agreement. Mr.
    McRann has filed a claim in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission seeking to
    “vary[]” the terms of the release agreement. United has filed a complaint in district court,
    alleging, among other things, breach of the release agreement. At our request, both
    parties provided a status report. Based on these reports, we conclude neither proceeding
    affects the determination of this action on appeal.
    -3-
    Upon his termination from A-2000, Mr. McRann filed a complaint against
    United in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. 2 Mr.
    McRann asserted in his complaint six state-law claims related to his termination:
    (1) breach of express or implied contract; (2) fraudulent and/or negligent
    misrepresentation; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) civil conspiracy; (5) promissory
    estoppel; and (6) interference with contract or prospective contractual relation.
    United answered and moved for summary judgment. Exercising its diversity
    jurisdiction, the district court dismissed on summary judgment all but the claims
    for civil conspiracy and promissory estoppel. At a status conference, the district
    court struck Mr. McRann’s demand for a jury trial and dismissed the civil
    conspiracy claim. Mr. McRann voluntarily dismissed the remaining claim of
    promissory estoppel. This appeal followed. We affirm. 3
    2
    The complaint also named as defendants United & Philips Communications B.V.
    and Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph, Inc. Mountain States Telephone &
    Telegraph is now known as US West, Inc., and we will refer to it as “US West”
    throughout the remainder of this order and judgment. On Mr. McRann’s motion, the
    district court dismissed US West as a defendant. In addition, Mr. McRann states in his
    opening brief United & Philips Communications B.V. is “not a party to this action”
    because it “was never served.”
    3
    In addition to the arguments discussed below, Mr. McRann presents other
    arguments contingent upon us reversing the district court on his breach of contract and/or
    misrepresentation claim. We do not address these arguments because we affirm the
    district court’s dismissal of this claim.
    -4-
    Standard of Review
    “We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo,
    applying the same legal standard as the district court.” Bullington v. United Air
    Lines, Inc., 
    186 F.3d 1301
    , 1313 (10th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Summary
    judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
    admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
    issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as
    a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “In applying this standard, we examine
    the factual record and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most
    favorable to the nonmoving party.” Clinger v. N. M. Highlands Univ., Bd. of
    Regents, 
    215 F.3d 1162
    , 1165 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted), cert. denied,
    
    531 U.S. 1145
     (2001). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support
    of the nonmovant’s position is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is
    genuine; an issue of material fact is genuine only if the nonmovant presents facts
    such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the nonmovant.” Simms v.
    Oklahoma ex. rel., Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 
    165 F.3d 1321
    , 1326 (10th Cir.) (quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 
    528 U.S. 815
     (1999).
    Breach of Contract
    -5-
    Mr. McRann argues the district court erred in granting summary judgement
    to United on his breach of express or implied contract claim because “[t]here are
    triable issues of material fact as to whether the parties reached an agreement as to
    the terms of [Mr.] McRann’s employment at A-2000.” The district court held “a
    reasonable jury could not find that the parties[] ever reached an agreement as to
    the essential terms of [Mr.] McRann’s alleged employment agreement.” We agree
    with the district court.
    “In order to establish the existence of a contract, the parties must
    understand and agree to all the essential terms [of the alleged contract].” Federal
    Lumber Co. v. Wheeler, 
    643 P.2d 31
    , 36 (Colo. 1981) (citations omitted). The
    parties’ agreement upon the essential terms of the alleged contract “is evidenced
    by their manifestations of mutual assent.” I.M.A., Inc. v. Rocky Mountain
    Airways, Inc., 
    713 P.2d 882
    , 888 (Colo. 1986) (citation omitted). There is no
    binding agreement “if it appears that further negotiations are required to work out
    important and essential terms.” DiFrancesco v. Particle Interconnect Corp., 
    39 P.3d 1243
    , 1248 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001) (citing Am. Mining Co. v. Himrod-Kimball
    Mines Co., 
    235 P.2d 804
    , 808 (Colo. 1951)).
    Mr. McRann maintains he reached agreement with United on his A-2000
    -6-
    employment agreement during a video conference call. During this call, Mr.
    Mark Schneider, an employee of United, discussed with Mr. McRann the terms of
    the employment agreement. Mr. Schneider allegedly assured Mr. McRann “[t]he
    contract will be almost identical to your contract in Australia, and we are going to
    make you whole on this contract.” Mr. McRann argues these statements represent
    “the parties’ mutual agreement as to the essential terms and the form of [the]
    agreement.” Mr. McRann claims he memorialized this alleged agreement in a
    “term sheet” upon Mr. Schneider’s request. 4
    Mr. McRann does not present facts allowing a reasonable jury to reach his
    conclusions. Mr. Schneider’s statement that United would “make [Mr. McRann]
    whole” could perhaps, in a different context, provide an inference of a contract.
    We, however, are bound to view statements in the factual context in which they
    4
    In his opening brief, Mr. McRann stated “[t]he evidence clearly supports a
    finding that the parties reached a meeting of the minds during the June 10, 1997
    teleconference. The evidence further supports a finding that [Mr.] McRann’s Term Sheet
    ... was intended to memorialize the terms of that agreement.” However, in his reply brief,
    Mr. McRann retreats from the position that the parties formed a contract at the
    teleconference. Instead, he argues the parties “agreed upon key economic terms of
    employment” at the teleconference and the rest of the details were resolved “[o]ver the
    next several days.” We need not respond to this argument raised for the first time in the
    reply brief. See Stump v. Gates, 
    211 F.3d 527
    , 533 (10th Cir. 2000). Even if we were to
    consider the new argument, Mr. McRann’s reply brief does not provide any additional
    evidence suggesting he and United agreed to a contract at any time prior to his creating
    the “term sheet.”
    -7-
    were made. See Estate of Hocker v. Walsh, 
    22 F.3d 995
    , 999 (10th Cir. 1994).
    Here, the undisputed evidence shows, in describing the video conference call, Mr.
    McRann wrote a letter to Ms. Margaret Houlihan, another employee of United,
    stating, “we are close to finalizing an employment contract,” but there are
    “remaining issues.” A few days later, Mr. McRann wrote a letter to Mr.
    Schneider stating, “I think we are close to an agreement pending further
    discussion/resolution on two key issues plus two small ones.” In addition, the
    title of the “term sheet” indicates it was only a “Draft of Proposed Employment
    terms.” In a memorandum attached to the “term sheet”, Mr. McRann
    acknowledged the proposed terms were subject to United’s agreement: “I agree to
    the terms attached and ... I think they should be contained in a new employment
    letter agreement. If you agree, please have it faxed to my home number.” The
    only reasonable inference from this evidence is the parties intended further
    negotiation; they had not entered a contract.
    Less than a month after the video conference call, Mr. McRann signed the
    release agreement terminating his Austar employment agreement. Mr. McRann
    argues his signing of the release agreement demonstrates the parties had
    previously agreed on the terms of his A-2000 employment. He claims he would
    not have signed the release agreement “if he had not firmly believed that he and
    -8-
    [United] had made a binding contract with respect to A-2000.” We will not
    speculate on the subjective reasons Mr. McRann signed the release agreement.
    The subjective and unexpressed intent of Mr. McRann is irrelevant to the issue of
    whether he and United reached a binding agreement on the terms of his A-2000
    employment. See Avemco Ins. Co. v. N. Colorado Air Charter, Inc., 
    38 P.3d 555
    ,
    559 (Colo. 2002); Therrien v. United Air Lines, Inc., 
    670 F. Supp. 1517
    , 1523 (D.
    Colo. 1987). Rather, Mr. McRann must present evidence allowing at least a
    reasonable inference the parties’ objective manifestations of assent indicate an
    agreement was reached. See Avemco Ins. Co., 38 P.3d at 559; I.M.A., Inc., 713
    P.2d at 888. This he did not do.
    Mr. McRann argues three incidents provide an inference United agreed to
    the essential terms of the contract at the teleconference. First, he believes an e-
    mail Ms. Houlihan sent him demonstrates Mr. Schneider had accepted “the
    content of the Term Sheet and expected [Ms.] Houlihan to use it as the basis for
    the final written contract.” Ms. Houlihan, who apparently had responsibility for
    drafting the employment agreement, wrote an e-mail to Mr. McRann stating:
    “Mark Schneider suggested that I obtain the term sheet and long incentive
    formula from you directly, as he is travelling [sic].” Ms. Houlihan also wrote she
    “look[ed] forward to speaking with [Mr. McRann] regarding the contract and
    -9-
    formula for the long term incentive.” These statements, taken together, do not
    support an inference that United had already accepted the terms set forth in the
    “term sheet.” Instead, this e-mail seems to indicate Ms. Houlihan anticipated
    further discussion with Mr. McRann about the employment agreement.
    Mr. McRann also believes we can infer the “term sheet” was an accurate
    memorialization of an already formed contract from the fact United presented a
    facsimile of the “term sheet” to US West, a part-owner of A-2000, “for approval,
    which approval was given.”We disagree. After reviewing the “term sheet,” a
    representative from US West replied, “[i]n general the terms proposed are good
    and consistent with our discussions.” The representative instructed Ms. Houlihan
    on what bonus or incentive payments she should include in the employment
    agreement. The representative also inquired whether a minimum bonus had been
    discussed. This communication does not demonstrate Mr. McRann had already
    secured an A-2000 employment agreement. Although it does demonstrate US
    West thought the “proposed” terms were “consistent” with terms previously
    discussed, this communication, much like the e-mail described above,
    demonstrates the parties anticipated further discussion about the employment
    terms.
    -10-
    Finally, Mr. McRann believes a telephone conversation with Ms. Houlihan
    a few weeks after the above e-mail was sent indicates the parties had agreed to
    the terms of a contract at the teleconference. Mr. McRann testified:
    I also called Maggie Houlihan two or three days before I left for
    Amsterdam, and I was extremely concerned because I had not received a
    copy of the contract, and she told me, “Bob, don’t worry about it. The
    contract is finished and complete. We only need one more sign-off in
    Denver. That person is not here. As soon as that person gets back, we’ll
    get the stamp of approval, and when you get to ... Amsterdam, that
    document will be waiting for you at the hotel for you to review.’”
    Mr. McRann maintains Ms. Houlihan’s alleged statement the employment
    agreement was “finished and complete” indicated the contract had already been
    formed and “did not need additional approval.” We disagree. The statement
    indicates at most the initial draft of the employment agreement was “finished and
    complete.” The agreement was still subject to “one more sign-off,” and Mr.
    McRann’s “review.” In fact, Mr. McRann testified Ms. Houlihan could not fax a
    copy of the agreement to him before he left for Amsterdam “because she hadn’t
    received the final signature approval on the document.” Consequently, we cannot
    reasonably infer from this correspondence that the parties previously reached an
    agreement upon the terms of a contract. 5
    5
    Mr. McRann argues in his reply brief two additional facts provide “compelling
    proof that [Mr.] McRann and [United] had a deal.” First, United issued a press release
    announcing Mr. McRann’s resignation from Austar. Second, Ms. Houlihan sent a
    memorandum to the chief executive of A-2000 confirming that Mr. McRann “accepted
    -11-
    After reviewing the evidence, we agree with the district court Mr. McRann
    failed to present facts allowing a reasonable jury to conclude the parties formed a
    contract. 6 We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on
    the breach of express or implied contract claim.
    Fraudulent and/or Negligent Misrepresentation
    Mr. McRann also insists the district court erred in granting summary
    judgment on his fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation claim. In doing so,
    Mr. McRann does not rely on the misrepresentation claim argued before the
    district court; he relies on a new misrepresentation claim pieced together on
    the position of COO for A2000.” As discussed earlier, we need not respond to arguments
    raised for the first time in the reply brief. See Stump, 
    211 F.3d at 533
    . Even so, this
    particular argument would fail if we were to consider it. Under the circumstances of this
    case, Mr. McRann’s departure from Austar and his so-called acceptance of the position at
    A-2000 did not create a legally enforceable agreement because the evidence indicates the
    parties had yet to agree upon the essential terms of Mr. McRann’s A-2000 employment.
    See Fed. Lumber Co., 643 P.2d at 36.
    6
    The district court also concluded “[t]he events which occurred once [Mr.]
    McRann was in Amsterdam further convince me that the evidence conclusively
    demonstrates that the parties were in the process of coming to a deal, rather than having
    reached a deal.” Mr. McRann argues the district court reached this conclusion by
    “improperly draw[ing] inferences favorable to defendants.” He believes “the events in
    Amsterdam are not relevant to whether [he] and [United] reached a ‘meeting of the
    minds’ in Australia.” We need not decide whether the events in Amsterdam are
    damaging to Mr. McRann’s case or simply irrelevant, because in either case, the evidence
    fails to suggest Mr. McRann and United entered a contract.
    -12-
    appeal from the rubble of the old. This he cannot do. See Lone Star Steel Co. v.
    United Mine Workers, 
    851 F.2d 1239
    , 1243 (10th Cir. 1988). Absent certain
    exceptions not present here, “we have consistently refused invitations to consider
    new issues on appeal.” Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 
    994 F.2d 716
    , 721 (10th
    Cir. 1993). We have repeatedly held “a party may not lose in the district court on
    one theory of the case, and then prevail on appeal on a different theory.” 
    Id.
    (citations omitted). An issue may be appealed only if it is “presented to,
    considered [and] decided by the trial court.” Cavic v. Pioneer Astro Indus., Inc.,
    
    825 F.2d 1421
    , 1425 (10th Cir. 1987) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
    Mr. McRann maintains he alleged a “two-prong fraud/negligent
    misrepresentation claim” before the district court: one prong based upon
    misrepresentations inducing him to sign the Austar release agreement, and one
    prong based upon misrepresentations inducing him to accept employment with A-
    2000. In other words, Mr. McRann maintains he alleged an “Austar
    misrepresentation claim” and an “A-2000 misrepresentation claim.” He appeals
    the district court’s decision as it relates only to the A-2000 misrepresentation
    claim. The A-2000 misrepresentation claim, however, was not “submitted to, or
    resolved by, the district court.” Lone Star Steel Co., 
    851 F.2d at 1243
    . Before
    the district court, Mr. McRann consistently argued he relied on various
    -13-
    misrepresentations about the A-2000 position by leaving his employment at
    Austar and signing the Austar release agreement. The district court rejected this
    argument and granted summary judgment, holding Mr. McRann ratified the
    release agreement and failed to tender-back a severance payment made under the
    release agreement. Mr. McRann did not mention any other misrepresentation
    claim. In short, Mr. McRann did not argue before the district court fraudulent or
    negligent misrepresentations induced him to accept employment with A-2000.
    Mr. McRann argues his complaint indicates he alleged a separate claim
    based solely on misrepresentations concerning his A-2000 employment. For
    example, one cause of action in the complaint states Mr. McRann relied on
    various misrepresentations by signing the release agreement and “moving to
    Amsterdam and assuming duties there ... for A-2000.” The same cause of action
    states he was damaged by foregoing compensation due him pursuant to his Austar
    employment agreement “and/or his A-2000 Employment Agreement and moving
    to Amsterdam without a signed employment agreement.”
    We conclude Mr. McRann did not allege two independent misrepresentation
    claims for three reasons. First, “vague, arguable references to [a] point in the
    district court proceedings do not ... preserve the issue on appeal.” Lyons, 994
    -14-
    F.2d at 722 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Second, a claim alleging
    fraud must be pled “with particularity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Mr. McRann
    specifically identified only one claim in his complaint involving fraud. He did
    not indicate the existence of a separate claim involving fraudulent
    misrepresentations inducing him to accept employment with A-2000. Third, the
    language identified by Mr. McRann suggests at most the scope of his fraudulent
    and/or negligent misrepresentation claim may have been slightly broader in the
    complaint than the scope of his misrepresentation claim articulated in subsequent
    pleadings. If this is what occurred, Mr. McRann abandoned this broader reading
    of his misrepresentation claim by consistently arguing in subsequent pleadings the
    Austar release agreement was not “effective” or “valid” because he was
    “fraudulently induced” to sign it. See Lyons, 
    994 F.2d at 722
     (citations omitted).
    Mr. McRann did not argue fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations induced him
    to accept employment with A-2000. Nor did he claim as damages the value of his
    alleged A-2000 employment agreement. 7
    7
    Mr. McRann did present an expert report on what his A-2000 compensation and
    benefits would have been if United had not allegedly reneged on the employment
    agreement “contemplated by the parties.” This information, however, was presented in
    support of Mr. McRann’s breach of contract claim. It was not used to support a claim
    involving misrepresentations inducing Mr. McRann to accept employment at A-2000.
    -15-
    Mr. McRann also maintains he discussed a separate misrepresentation claim
    in his brief opposing United’s motion for summary judgment. In one paragraph
    nestled in the statement of undisputed facts, Mr. McRann alleged United
    “representatives fraudulently misrepresented material facts that [he] relied upon
    and if known before he made his decision to accept the A-2000 position, would
    have caused him to remain in Australia.” This language does not support a
    separate claim based on misrepresentations concerning the A-2000 position.
    Instead, this language, when read together with the rest of the brief, is consistent
    with Mr. McRann’s argument he relied on misrepresentations concerning the A-
    2000 position by leaving his employment at Austar and signing the Austar release
    agreement. In fact, Mr. McRann later referenced this language in the brief as
    supporting his contention the Austar release was not “effective ... because it was
    fraudulently induced.”
    Mr. McRann also argues he did not address the A-2000 misrepresentation
    claim because United’s summary judgment motion was directed only to the
    misrepresentation claim “concerning Austar and the compensation and release
    agreement.” This argument fails. United’s memorandum in support of its motion
    for summary judgment makes it clear it sought summary judgment on all of the
    claims Mr. McRann brought against United. Furthermore, the language in
    -16-
    United’s memorandum tracks the argument in Mr. McRann’s complaint: “[Mr.]
    McRann claims that [United] either fraudulently or negligently misrepresented the
    terms of his A-2000 employment contract, causing him to terminate his Australia
    contract and move to Amsterdam instead of continuing to work for AUSTAR.
    Based on the undisputed facts, these claims fail as a matter of law.” United went
    on to argue the Austar release agreement waived Mr. McRann’s claims of fraud or
    negligent misrepresentation. Mr. McRann responded by arguing, among other
    things, the release only applied to contract-based claims. Mr. McRann never
    mentioned the existence of another misrepresentation claim; he responded as if he
    had only one misrepresentation claim. Mr. McRann cannot shift responsibility for
    his conduct on United’s failure to contest a claim he did not allege in his
    complaint or raise in response to United’s summary judgment motion.
    In sum, Mr. McRann may not assert a new and different misrepresentation
    claim on appeal. 8 As he does not appeal the district court’s decision concerning
    the misrepresentation claim actually presented to the district court, we affirm the
    district court’s grant of summary judgment on the fraudulent and/or negligent
    8
    Consequently, we reject Mr. McRann’s remaining arguments dependent upon
    our making a determination he alleged a separate misrepresentation claim before the
    district court. He did not.
    -17-
    misrepresentation claim.
    Conclusion
    Mr. McRann’s and United’s motions to supplement the record on appeal are
    granted. Mr. McRann’s motion to strike United’s status report is denied. For the
    reasons stated above, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    Entered by the Court:
    WADE BRORBY
    United States Circuit Judge
    -18-