HRCC, Ltd. v. Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc.
703 F. App'x 814
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- HRCC, Ltd. held a Hard Rock Café franchise license for Nassau, Bahamas; Hard Rock later terminated the franchise agreement and HRCC sued Hard Rock, and two executives (Dodds and Beacham).
- Count One alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Florida Act), Fla. Stat. § 501.201.
- Hard Rock moved for summary judgment arguing (1) the Florida Act limits recoverable damages to “actual damages” (not consequential lost profits) and (2) HRCC had produced no evidence of actual damages.
- HRCC did not respond to the defendants’ damages arguments or cite evidence of damages in its district-court opposition.
- The district court applied the Rollins definition of “actual damages” (difference in market value as delivered vs. as promised) and found no evidence in the record, granting summary judgment for the defendants.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding (a) Rollins/Carriuolo governs the meaning of “actual damages” under Florida law and (b) the court properly required HRCC to cite evidence in opposition to summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper definition of “actual damages” under the Florida Act | Florida Supreme Court would adopt a broader, compensatory-damages definition | Florida Act limits recovery to direct/market-value "actual damages" (not consequential lost profits) | Court applied Eleventh Circuit precedent adopting Rollins: actual damages = difference in market value (not lost profits); Rollins/Carriuolo controls |
| Whether HRCC produced evidence of actual damages to survive summary judgment | HRCC now points to record evidence on appeal (argues it should survive under Rollins) | No evidence was cited below; summary judgment appropriate because plaintiff bore burden to present evidence | Affirmed: HRCC failed to cite evidence below; court need consider only materials cited under Rule 56; summary judgment proper |
| Whether district court erred by not independently searching the record for damages evidence | HRCC argued district court should review all submitted evidence even if uncited | Defendants: non-moving party must present arguments/evidence; court may rely on cited material only | Held: district court correctly relied on parties’ cited materials; no duty to independently search record |
| Binding effect of prior Eleventh Circuit interpretation of Florida law | HRCC urged reexamination of Carriuolo and a broader view | Defendants relied on binding Eleventh Circuit precedent | Held: panel bound by Carriuolo; no intervening state or Supreme Court authority required to change course |
Key Cases Cited
- Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (defines “actual damages” as difference in market value; purchase price when product is valueless)
- Carriuolo v. Gen. Motors Co., 823 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2016) (Eleventh Circuit adopted Rollins definition for Florida Act claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment proper when party fails to establish an essential element)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Weitz, 913 F.2d 1544 (11th Cir. 1990) (nonmoving party must present arguments in opposition to summary judgment)
- Dolphin LLC v. WCI Cmtys, Inc., 715 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff must provide evidence of damages to survive summary judgment)