Nettleton v. Canyon Outdoor Media
44416
| Idaho | Dec 21, 2017Background
- Nettleton worked for Canyon Outdoor selling billboard advertising; compensation included commissions for new and renewal contracts. A written commission schedule (Feb. 28, 2014) set new-contract commissions at 10% of monthly revenue. No comprehensive written employment agreement otherwise.
- Nettleton resigned in April 2015. Canyon Outdoor paid wages it believed due but withheld additional commission payments, asserting post-separation commissions required ongoing servicing of client accounts.
- Nettleton sued under the Idaho Wage Claim Act and for breach of contract seeking unpaid commissions for new contracts procured before resignation; the district court granted summary judgment for Nettleton and awarded $21,550 plus fees.
- Canyon Outdoor moved for reconsideration and filed this appeal, arguing genuine factual disputes existed about a servicing requirement and that summary judgment was improper.
- The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment and fee award and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact about whether a servicing requirement existed precluded summary judgment; costs were awarded to Canyon Outdoor on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment for Nettleton was proper on his commission claims | Nettleton: commissions for new contracts were promised by the written schedule and not conditioned on post-employment servicing | Canyon Outdoor: entitlement to commissions depended on an ongoing servicing obligation; factual dispute exists | Vacated — genuine factual disputes about a servicing requirement preclude summary judgment; remanded |
| Whether the Snake River Dental payment established a course of dealing negating a servicing requirement | Nettleton: the upfront payment and commission payout showed commissions were paid without a servicing condition and created a course of dealing/performance | Canyon Outdoor: that single instance was consistent with performance while Nettleton was servicing the account and is not dispositive | Not dispositive — single transaction does not establish a course of dealing/performance sufficient to resolve the dispute on summary judgment |
| Whether the district court erred in denying Canyon Outdoor’s motion for reconsideration | Nettleton: earlier rulings were correct; no reconsideration relief warranted | Canyon Outdoor: new declaration and arguments created issues that warranted reconsideration | Vacated — because summary judgment itself was improper, the reconsideration and related rulings must be vacated and re-decided on remand |
| Whether attorney’s fees awarded below or claimed on appeal should be granted | Nettleton: seeks fees under wage statutes and general fee statutes | Canyon Outdoor: seeks fees under commercial-transaction fee statute and other statutes | Neither party awarded fees on appeal now; district court to re-determine fees after final resolution; costs on appeal awarded to Canyon Outdoor |
Key Cases Cited
- Trotter v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 152 Idaho 842, 275 P.3d 857 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Mackay v. Four Rivers Packing Co., 145 Idaho 408, 179 P.3d 1064 (construe disputed facts and inferences in favor of nonmoving party)
- Banner Life Ins. v. Mark Wallace Dixson Irrevocable Trust, 147 Idaho 117, 206 P.3d 481 (burden on moving party to show absence of genuine issue; cross-motions do not eliminate disputes)
- Intermountain Forest Mgmt., Inc. v. La. Pac. Corp., 136 Idaho 233, 31 P.3d 921 (evaluate each summary judgment motion on its merits)
- Riverside Dev. Co. v. Ritchie, 103 Idaho 515, 650 P.2d 657 (trial court as trier of fact may resolve conflicting inferences in bench trial context)
- Pocatello Hosp., LLC v. Quail Ridge Med. Investor, LLC, 156 Idaho 709, 330 P.3d 1067 (establishing course of dealing/performance requires pattern or repeated conduct)
- Howard v. Perry, 141 Idaho 139, 106 P.3d 465 (vacatur of fees when underlying judgment vacated)
- Polk v. Larrabee, 135 Idaho 303, 17 P.3d 247 (statutory scheme governing fee recovery in wage claims)
- Willie v. Bd. of Trs., 138 Idaho 131, 59 P.3d 302 (breach of employment contract as commercial transaction subject to I.C. § 12-120(3) fees)
- Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. MacDonald, 162 Idaho 228, 395 P.3d 1261 (prevailing-party determination for appeal fees is made after final resolution)