National Utility Service, Inc. v. Cambridge-Lee Industries, Inc.
199 F. App'x 139
3rd Cir.
2006
Check Treatment
Docket

NATIONAL UTILITY SERVICE, INC. v. CAMBRIDGE-LEE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant.

No. 04-2952.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Sept. 25, 2006.

On remand, the District Court held a sentencing hearing and, after arguments by counsel, reinstated the original sentence. Having reviewed the record in this case, we find no error and do not find the sentence unreasonable.

Outram also attempts now to collaterally attack his 1993 removal order, which was issued in absentia, arguing that it was fundamentally unfair. Initially, we note that Outram failed to raise this claim in his original appeal of his sentence and is foreclosed from doing so now. See .

The challenge also fails on the merits. To prevail on a collateral attack on a deportation order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), (1) an alien must exhaust any administrative remedies that may have been available; (2) the deportation proceedings must have deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and (3) entry of the order must have been fundamеntally unfair. “[A]ll three [requirements] must be met before an alien will be permitted to mount a collateral challenge to the underlying removal order.” .

Outram has not demonstrated that the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. “[F]undamental fairness is a question of procedure.” (quoting ). With respect tо removal proceedings, “due process requires that an alien who faces [removal] be provided (1) notice of the charges against him, (2) a hearing before an executive or administrative tribunal, and (3) a fair opportunity to be heard.” (quoting ).

In the present case, Outram reсeived notice of the removal proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before an Immigration Judge. He failed, however, to appear at this hearing. This is not a denial of due process. Further, we note that Outram does not appear to contest the fаcts underlying the removal order.

Accordingly, we will affirm the Judgment of the District Court.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit ‍​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‍LAR 34.1(a) Sept. 11, 2006.

Filed: Sept. 25, 2006.

Thomas P. Monahan, Jr., Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein, Roseland, NJ, Peter G. Goodman, Hartman & Craven, New York, NY, for Appellee.

Anthony Argiropoulos, Fox Rothschild, Lawrenceville, NJ, Ronald L. Williams, Fox Rothschild, Exton, PA, for Appellant.

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SCIRICA, Chief Judge.

Cambridge-Lee Industries, Inc., appeals the District Court‘s judgment in favor of National Utility Service, Inc., in a breach of contract action. We will affirm.

I.

On May 25, 1994, National Utility contracted with Cambridge-Lee to review Cambridge-Lee‘s monthly utility bills and recommend cost-saving changes to its services, with National Utility entitled to 50% of savings realized by Cambridge-Lee for 60 months through approval and implementation of any of those suggestions (after recapture of an initial service fee). The contract was for a three-year term, automatically renewable absent notice by Cambridge-Lеe. It also entitled National Utility to 50% of savings attributable to recommendations implemented after the contract‘s expiration, and required Cambridge-Lee to continue sending National Utility information and invoices covering outstanding recommendations at expiration.

In May 1995, Cambridgе-Lee stopped sending its monthly utility bills to National Utility. On June 9, 1995, National Utility made an initial report to Cambridge-Lee, which included a recommendation that Cambridge-Lee could save on telecommunications costs by implementing AT&T‘s UniPLAN consolidated billing format. Thereafter, National Utility made nearly thirty requests between 1995 and 2001 that Cambridge-Lee resume sending its billing records and provide information relating to the status of recommendations already made by National Utility. On October 10, 1996, Cambridge-Lee‘s chief financial officer wrote to National Utility that Cambridge-Lee would no longer be able to send utility bills to National Utility, and that Cambridge-Lee considered the contract terminated. After the expiration of the contract‘s term on May 24, 1997, Cambridge-Lee entered into an agreement with AT&T no later than August 25, 1998 to implement the UniPLAN service.

National Utility sued Cambridge-Lee for breach of contract on July 10, 2002. National Utility contended Cambridge-Lee breached by failing to submit monthly invoices for National Utility‘s review and analysis after National Utility made its initial recommendations. National ‍​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‍Utility also contended it was entitled to 50% of savings Cambridge-Lee realized through implementation of the UniPLAN service for intra-and interstate telephone service. Finally, although National Utility had not made a recommendation that Cambridge-Lee implement AT&T‘s UniPLAN service for intraLATA (local) telephone service, it contended it would have done so before the end оf the contract term, had Cambridge-Lee not breached, and that it was also entitled to 50% of savings from implementation of the UniPLAN service for local calls.

A bench trial followed. At the end of National Utility‘s case-in-chief, Cambridge-Lee moved to dismiss National Utility‘s claims as time barred. The District Court denied the motion without prejudice (reserving judgment) and invited counsel for Cambridge-Lee to re-argue the issue at the conclusion of the case. Cambridge-Lee contended it had not breached, and, alternatively, contended the statute of limitations barred National Utility‘s сlaims.

After the bench trial, the District Court again rejected Cambridge-Lee‘s statute of limitations argument. On three separate and independent grounds—all of which Cambridge-Lee now contends were raised sua sponte—the District Court declared National Utility‘s claims were not time barred. First, thе District Court found Cambridge-Lee attempted to terminate the contract prematurely through its October 10, 1996 letter. Second, it found Cambridge-Lee‘s failure to submit billing records to National Utility was a “continuing breach” until August 25, 2003. Third, it found Cambridge-Lee‘s failure to remit National Utility‘s 50% share of savings resulting from implementаtion of AT&T‘s UniPLAN service a “continuing breach” until August 2003. All three breaches, the court found, occurred within the six-year statute of limitations.

The District Court attributed Cambridge-Lee‘s implementation of AT&T‘s UniPLAN service to National Utility‘s recommendation. It inferred that, had Cambridge-Lee complied with its obligations tо provide data, National Utility would have continued to recommend the UniPLAN service for long-distance calls until the expiration of the contract in May 1997. The court concluded the contract unambiguously provided for a 50% split of cost savings resulting from an implementation of a rеcommendation, for sixty months, whether or not the implementation occurred during the contract term or within a reasonable period of time thereafter. It found the (at most) one-year-and-three-month period between the contract‘s expiration and Uni-PLAN implementation tо be reasonable, and refused to infer UniPLAN implementation was “unrelated” to National Utility‘s recommendation. The District Court awarded damages to National Utility of $182,514.18, or one-half the proved savings (less the recaptured $12,000 service fee) plus pre-judgment interest and costs from August 25, 1998.1 Cambridge-Lee appeals.

The District Court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In an аppeal of a final judgment following a bench trial, we exercise plenary review over the District Court‘s conclusions of law. Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. (citing ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)).

II.

Cambridge-Lee presents two issues on appeal. First, error in failing to find the statute of limitatiоns barred National Utility‘s claims, and, second, error in finding Cambridge-Lee‘s contract with AT&T was an unlawful implementation of ‍​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‍National Utility‘s recommendations.

As for the statute of limitations, the District Court found National Utility‘s claims were not barred under a continuing breach of contract theory. In New Jersey, the statute of limitations on breach of contract claims is six years from the date of accrual. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-1 (West 2000). New Jersey courts “have generally stated that a claim accrues, for statute of limitations purposes, on ‘the date on which the right to institute and maintain a suit’ first arose.” (quoting ). But in the cаse of installment or continuous contracts, a cause of action arises for each periodic breach that occurs, absent total repudiation. See (finding purchaser that failed most weeks to purchase the minimum amount of clams specified in a renewablе one-year contract with supplier “continuously breached that contract“); (“In an installment contract a new cause of action arises from the date each payment is missed.“); 9 Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 956 (rev. ed. 2002) (“[C]ontracts ... that have been said to require continuing (or continuous) performance for some specified period of time ... are capable of a series of ‘partial’ breaches.“).

New Jersey courts have applied the “continuing breach” standard to allow claims when the initial breach of a contract occurred outside the statutory period, but successive breaches occurred within it. See (citing cases). The standard is typically applied in installment contracts, so that “a new cause of action arises from the date each payment is missed.” . But it has also been applied where a party has continuously breached a non-payment performance obligation. See (finding, when city of Newark failed to collect garbage under tax abatement agreement with limited ‍​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‍dividend housing corporation, that its failure “could be considered a series of continuing breaches for which plaintiffs could maintain an action for any breach occurring within six years of the filing of the complaint, even if more than six years had elapsed since Newark‘s initial breach“). Here, the contract unambiguously obligated Cambridge-Lee to submit its utility bills to National Utility every month during the contract term, as well as to send information and invoices on as yet unimplemented recommendations after the expiration of the contract term. Cambridge-Lee failed to submit monthly information to National Utility from May 1995 through August 25, 2003 (sixty months from implementation of the UniPLAN service). Accordingly, Cambridge-Lee was in continuing breach of contract within the six-year statute of limitations period.

Cambridge-Lee also contends its initial failure to submit monthly invoices, in May 1995, constituted a repudiation of the contract. If true, National Utility‘s claims might be time barred, beсause repudiation could operate as a “single total breach.” Corbin, supra, § 956; see also (noting that, in the case of continuing breach of an installment contract, “absent a repudiation, a plaintiff may sue for each breach only as it occurs, and the statute of limitations begins to run at that time“). But the District Court did not err in rejecting Cambridge-Lee‘s contention that a total breach occurred in May 1995, because Cambridge-Lee failed to establish that its actions constituted a repudiation at that time. Repudiation “entails a statement or ‘voluntary аffirmative act’ indicating that the promisor ‘will commit a breach’ when performance becomes due.” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 250 (1981)). In a continuous or installment contract, the first instance of a continuing breach alone is not a “total breach” unless acсompanied by an anticipatory repudiation of performance due in the future. Corbin, supra, § 954. Accordingly, while Cambridge-Lee‘s continuing breach as to its obligation to submit information to National Utility might have begun in May 1995, there was no repudiation or total breach at that point, because there was no indication then that Cambridge-Lee would not fulfill its future obligations under the contract. In fact, after National Utility submitted its initial recommendations in June 1995, Cambridge-Lee told National Utility that same month that it would designate an employee to submit information to National Utility. Nationаl Utility continually requested the information thereafter.2

Cambridge-Lee also contends the District Court improperly raised the theory of continuing breach sua sponte in its ruling “without giving [Cambridge-Lee] the opportunity to offer a legal or factual defense,” violating Cambridge-Lee‘s right to prоcedural due process. The record belies this argument. Cambridge-Lee raised the affirmative statute of limitations defense in its answer and later moved to have National Utility‘s claims dismissed as time-barred. Once during National Utility‘s case-in-chief and again at its conclusion, the District Court informed counsel continuing breach would be an issue in any statute of limitations defense. Due process requires that parties be given a full and fair opportunity to litigate issues critical to their case. . Cambridge-Lee had such an opportunity on the issue of continuing breach.

As for finding Cambridge-Lee‘s contract with AT&T was an unlawful implementation of National Utility‘s recommendations, the District Court did not err. Thе finding that National Utility would have continued to recommend UniPLAN until May 1997 if Cambridge-Lee had fulfilled its obligations was not clearly erroneous. As the District Court stated, the contract unambiguously provided that cost savings would be split between the parties, whether or not recommendations were implemented during or after the contract term. We need not decide whether there was a temporal limitation on this provision.3 A contract whose obligations are of indefinite duration should be interpreted to require performance for a reasonable period of time. . The District Court did not err in finding the period between May 1997 and August 1998 reasonable.

III.

We will affirm the District Court‘s judgment.

Michael RICHARDS, Appellant v. Frank TENNIS, Superintendent, SCI Bellefonte; The District Attorney of the County of Philadelphia; The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania.

No. 05-2725.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Sept. 25, 2006.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit ‍​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‍LAR 34.1(a) Sept. 11, 2006.

Filed: Sept. 25, 2006.

Notes

1
The District Court found National Utility had fаiled to sustain its burden of proof as to damages from potential recommendation of UniPLAN service for local calls.
2
Cambridge-Lee‘s October 10, 1996 letter may have constituted a repudiation and total breach, but we need not address the District Court‘s separate and indeрendent holding that Cambridge-Lee breached the contract through that letter.
3
Cambridge-Lee‘s reliance on , is misplaced. The Court of Appeals there did conclude National Utility was not entitled to a percentage of savings from implementation of its recommendations by defendant at two manufacturing plants after expiration of the contract term. But as to the first plant, the holding was based on a contractual provision explicitly excluding savings resulting from an increased power factor, whether or not it had been recommended. As to the second plant, the holding was based on defendant‘s explicit rejection of the recommendation and the absence of any indication that it had been implemented.