T.F.T.F. CAPITAL CORP., Plаintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant,
v.
MARCUS DAIRY, INC., Michael Marcus, as Officer, Director and Shareholder of Marcus Dairy, individually, and Agnes Barbiero, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees,
James E. Sullivan, Fairfiеld County Deputy Sheriff, individually, and Dominick Barbiero, Defendants-Counter-Claimants.
Docket No. 01-7549.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued: June 10, 2002.
Decided: October 25, 2002.
Neil H. Ruttenberg, Beltsville, MD, (Donald F. Reid, Norwalk, CT, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant.
David B. Zabel,(Stewart I. Edelstein, on the brief), Cohen and Wolf, P.C., Bridgeport, CT, for Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees Marcus Dairy, Inc. and Michael Marcus.
Before WALKER, Chief Judge, MINER and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant T.F.T.F. Capital Corporatiоn ("T.F.T.F." or appellant) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Warren W. Eginton, District Judge), granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Marcus Dairy, Inc. and Michael Marcus (collectively, appellees). See T.F.T.F. Capital Corp. v. Marcus Dairy, Inc.,
BACKGROUND
This case stems from the sale of a business, Naugatuck Dairy Ice Cream Company, Inc. ("Naugatuck"), and a lawsuit brought in state court when the deal unraveled. Dominick Barbiero and appellee Marcus Dairy are the formеr majority shareholders of Naugatuck and appellee Michael Marcus is the president of Marcus Dairy. Appellant T.F.T.F. is a New York holding company. T.F.T.F.'s president, Henry Thomas, was presidеnt of Freedom Foods, Inc., the initial purchaser of Naugatuck, and became president of Naugatuck after the sale.
In March 1988, Barbiero, Marcus Dairy (represented by Michael Marcus), and Naugatuck entered into a stock and assets purchase agreement with Freedom Foods for the sale of Naugatuck by Barbiero and Marcus Dairy to Freedom Foods. Pursuant to the аgreement, Freedom Foods financed the purchase of Naugatuck's production equipment and inventory by executing two promissory notes in favor of Naugatuck that were assigned to Marcus Dairy. Freedom Foods also agreed to a post-sale inventory price adjustment based on actual value. After the closing, T.F.T.F. purchased the production equipment from Freеdom Foods and accepted assignment of the lease agreement for the production equipment.
A lawsuit followed, for reasons disputed by the parties. According to appеllees, Freedom Foods defaulted on the notes and failed to deliver, as the parties had agreed, an executed note for the inventory price adjustment. In July 1988, Marcus Dairy sued Freedоm Foods in Connecticut state court to collect on these obligations (the "Connecticut action"). As pre-judgment remedies, Marcus Dairy obtained, ex parte, the attachment of Frеedom Foods's accounts receivable and the production equipment. The Connecticut state court granted Marcus Dairy's motion for a default judgment against Freedom Foods for Freedom Foods's failure to plead.
Appellant, on the other hand, denies that Freedom Foods was ever in default and asserts that appellees1 obtained the pre-judgment remedies as well as the judgment in the Connecticut action through deceit. In appellant's view, appellees brought the Connecticut action in retaliation for Naugatuck's decision to movе its business away from Marcus in favor of another supplier. Appellant also asserts that Marcus Dairy, in both its application for the first pre-judgment remedy and in its successful motion for summary judgment, emрloyed deceitful measures to prevent Freedom from responding. By obtaining as a pre-judgment remedy the seizure of Naugatuck's assets and the temporary closure of the plant, aрpellant further alleges, appellees destroyed Naugatuck's business.
In September 1991, appellant commenced this diversity action. As is relevant to this appeal, appellant claimed under Connecticut state law that the Connecticut action constituted an abuse of process and a tortious interference with appellant's expectations оf financial gain from the equipment lease with Naugatuck. Appellant further claimed that appellees had made a fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with the sale. In granting аppellees' motion for summary judgment, the district court found the abuse of process and tortious interference with business expectancy claims to be barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and the fraudulеnt misrepresentation claim to be time barred. T.F.T.F.,
DISCUSSION
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Tri-State Employment Servs., Inc. v. Mountbatten Sur. Co.,
On appeal, appellant challenges only the dismissal of its abuse of process and tortious interference with a business expectancy claims under Noerr-Pennington.2 The Noerr-Pennington doctrine generally immunizes from liability а party's commencement of a prior court proceeding. See Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited,
Appellant argues that the judgment rendered in the Connecticut action should not havе been immunized from the sham litigation exception simply because a default judgment was rendered in favor of appellees. See T.F.T.F.,
We think that the district court erred when it found the sham litigation exception to Noerr-Pennington to be inapplicable on the basis of the default judgment rendered in the Connectiсut action. It is generally true that a winning lawsuit is "a reasonable effort at petitioning for redress and therefore not a sham." Prof'l Real Estate,
We need not resolve the issues relating to the effect of a default judgment for Noerr-Pennington purposes because the district court's judgment can be affirmed on the basis that aрpellant's state law claims are wholly without merit. Appellant's tortious interference claim fails as a matter of law because the undisputed evidence shows that, by the end of August 1988, Naugatuсk had essentially closed down. Accordingly, T.F.T.F. has failed to raise an issue concerning its claim that appellees' execution of the pre-judgment attachment in September 1988 tortiously interfered with its expectation of economic benefit from its relationship with Naugatuck.
T.F.T.F.'s abuse of process claim also fails as a matter of law because it has failed to produce sufficient evidence that Marcus Dairy used the legal process in the underlying action "primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed." Mozzochi v. Beck,
Finally, we deny both parties' motions for appellate sanctions because this appeal was not frivolous. See Fed. R.App. P. 38.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Notes:
Notes
Although Michael Marcus was not formally a party to the Connecticut action, apрellant refers to both appellees, Michael Marcus and Marcus Dairy, collectively in connection with that action. Because any distinctions between appellees аre irrelevant to this appeal, we follow appellant's practice where convenient
Appellant does not contest the district court's dismissal of its fraudulent misrepresentation claim as time barred