Larry Harmon v. Ben Gordon
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5555
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- In 2004, Gordon and Harmon entered a financial services and consulting agreement for Gordon’s rookie contract with the Bulls, with payment terms set for three or four years.
- The Agreement stated it would last for the duration of Gordon’s playing career, but it provided compensation only through the end of the rookie contract and contemplated a new engagement letter after that period.
- In 2006, Harmon changed the fee to 1.5% of Gordon’s annual income; Gordon paid until July 2007 amid dispute over the fee change.
- Gordon terminated Harmon’s services in July 2007 while his Bulls rookie contract extended into 2008, and Gordon stopped monthly payments.
- Harmon later sued, asserting breach of contract and tort claims; Gordon moved for summary judgment on contract and fiduciary issues; district court favored Gordon and dismissed tort claims.
- Harmon appealed, challenging the contract interpretation and the dismissals; the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contract duration interpretation | Harmon: contract lasts for Gordon’s entire NBA career. | Gordon: contract lasts only through the rookie term; new agreement to follow. | Contract intended to last only for Gordon’s rookie period; extrinsic evidence resolves ambiguity. |
| Damages for post-termination period | Harmon: entitled to damages for remaining term beyond termination. | Gordon: no recoverable damages beyond the terminated period. | Waived damages beyond the four-year term; no summary judgment for post-termination damages. |
| Tortious interference claim res judicata | Harmon: Illinois law may apply; not barred by prior California ruling. | Gordon: res judicata bars reassertion of same claim. | Tortious interference barred by res judicata; same operative facts as Gordon lawsuit. |
| Malicious prosecution special damages | Harmon: alleges special damages beyond ordinary litigation costs. | Gordon: damages are ordinary litigation costs. | Special injury requirement not met; malicious prosecution claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 703 N.E.2d 883 (Ill. 1998) (res judicata considerations and final adjudication on the merits)
- Buckner v. Sam’s Club, Inc., 75 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 1996) (affidavits contradict prior sworn testimony not allowed to create issue of fact)
- Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Nw. Nat’l. Ins. Co., 427 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2005) (ambiguous contract interpretation guided by undisputed extrinsic evidence)
- Levin v. King, 648 N.E.2d 1108 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (special damages required in malicious prosecution claim)
- Equity Associates, Inc. v. Village of Northbrook, 524 N.E.2d 1119 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (damages for malicious prosecution must exceed ordinary defense costs)
- Shields Pork Plus, Inc. v. Swiss Valley Ag Serv., 767 N.E.2d 949 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (contract ambiguity decision under Illinois law)