Asset Marketing Services, LLC v. JAM Products, Inc.et al, 0:19-cv-02113

Background

AMS (plaintiff) contracted with JAM Products and Steven Harris (defendants) concerning production and sale of Coca‑Cola themed coins purported to be Fiji legal tender; AMS alleged defendants failed to obtain Fiji authorization before delivery and sued under the Hobby Protection Act and for breach of contract.
JAM counterclaimed for unpaid royalties, tortious interference with JAM’s alleged contract with Shanghai New Century Minting, and reimbursement of two U.S. Customs duties assessed on the coins.
The case was tried to a jury in August 2021; AMS moved under Rule 50(a) for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the defendants’ evidence on multiple grounds (Hobby Protection Act liability, tortious interference counterclaim, reasonableness/necessity of customs duties, and that a material breach excused AMS’s royalty obligation).
Key evidence: Mr. Harris (JAM) testified the coins were not legal tender at importation and that a customs duty arose from misclassification; documentary evidence included letters from South Pacific Mint purporting authorization and a Reserve Bank of Fiji letter disputing proper approval.
The Consulting Agreement (and Amendment 1) required consultant to obtain "all required third party and/or licensor consents;" parties disputed whether that obligated defendants to secure issuing‑authority (Fiji) approval prior to delivery.
The court found the contract language ambiguous but that undisputed parol evidence (testimony and Harris’s conduct) showed the parties understood Harris had the obligation to obtain issuing authority approval prior to delivery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants are liable under the Hobby Protection Act for importing imitation numismatic items	AMS: coins were not authorized by Fiji at import and were unmarked copies, so defendants violated the Act	Defendants: documentary letters suggested Fiji authorization; factual dispute for jury	Granted: no reasonable juror could find coins were authorized at import; JMOL for AMS
Tortious interference counterclaim by JAM against AMS	AMS: conduct was justified/was not the cause of any breach; no breach occurred	JAM: AMS’s agreement with Shanghai Minting caused breach/damages	Granted for AMS: JAM failed to show breach or unjustified procurement; claim speculative
Reimbursement for customs duties (breach counterclaim)	AMS: duties were not reasonable or necessarily incurred because duties resulted from misclassification and would not apply if coins were legal tender	JAM: duties were expenses incurred performing services under agreement	Granted for AMS: duties were not reasonable/necessary (should not have been assessed)
Whether AMS’s duty to pay royalties was excused by JAM’s material breach	AMS: JAM materially breached, excusing AMS’s royalty duty	JAM: any breach not material; fact question for jury	Denied: materiality is a fact question; record could support non‑material breach so JMOL denied

Key Cases Cited

Roberson v. AFC Enters., Inc., 602 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard for resolving JMOL; view evidence for nonmovant)
Sip-Top, Inc. v. Ekco Grp., Inc., 86 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 1996) (JMOL appropriate where nonmovant’s case rests on speculation)
Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 207 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2000) (JMOL must be granted when recovery rests on conjecture)
E-Shops Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 678 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2012) (elements of tortious interference under Minnesota law)
Furlev Sales & Assocs., Inc. v. N. Am. Auto. Warehouse, Inc., 325 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. 1982) (tortious interference elements)
Alpha Real Est. Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minn., 664 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2003) (court, not jury, interprets contract)
Gutierrez v. Red River Distrib., Inc., 523 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. 1994) (use of parol evidence when contract ambiguous)
Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 522 (Minn. 1990) (avoid contractual interpretations that render language meaningless)
Sitek v. Striker, 764 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (material breach may discharge performance obligations)