Ex parte Newport Television, LLC. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Cyndi Booth v. Newport Television, LLC) (Mobile Circuit Court: CV-08-901716; Civil Appeals : 2100413). Writ Quashed. No Opinion.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 11/30/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1111280 Ex p a r t e Newport T e l e v i s i o n , LLC PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In r e : Cyndi Booth v. Newport T e l e v i s i o n , L L C ) (Mobile C i r c u i t Court, CV-08-901716; Court o f C i v i l Appeals, 2100413) MAIN, Justice. WRIT QUASHED. NO OPINION. Malone, C.J., and S t u a r t , B o l i n , concur. M u r d o c k a n d Shaw, J J . , d i s s e n t . Parker, and Wise, JJ., 1111280 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e In (dissenting). 2007, N e w p o r t T e l e v i s i o n , LLC, purchased from Clear C h a n n e l B r o a d c a s t i n g , I n c . , t h e a s s e t s a n d o p e r a t i o n s o f two television stations a t which Cyndi Booth was e m p l o y e d . In c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h h e r employment, B o o t h a n d C l e a r C h a n n e l h a d e n t e r e d i n t o a n o n c o m p e t i t i o n agreement. a dispute between Newport and Booth T h i s case as to involves whether the n o n c o m p e t i t i o n a g r e e m e n t was a s s i g n e d t o , a n d t h u s e n f o r c e a b l e b y , N e w p o r t as p a r t which Booth o f i t s p u r c h a s e o f t h e two s t a t i o n s f o r worked. The t r i a l court held e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t f o r N e w p o r t . Appeals r e v e r s e d t h e summary Television, (Ala. this Newport sought of the Court of C i v i l i t was a n d The C o u r t o f Booth v. L L C , [Ms. 2100413, Dec. 16, 2011] C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . Court judgment. that Civil Newport So. 3d certiorari review by Appeals' decision. This Court g r a n t e d t h a t r e v i e w , b u t today quashes t h e w r i t by which it d i d so. that I d i s s e n t from t h i s a c t i o n . the t r i a l court was correct. It appea rs to At best from me Booth's s t a n d p o i n t , t h e c o n t r a c t p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h Newport p u r c h a s e d the assets and o p e r a t i o n s o f C l e a r Channel ("the purchase agreement") i s ambiguous, and, i f t h a t i s so, t h e t r i a l 2 court 1111280 correctly fact, construed the i t in purchase favor agreement of is Newport. Arguably, in in of unambiguous favor Newport. Article simply, of of the purchase the Article rights notion 1.1 and of defines a sale of an and "Station Assets" operation w i t h i n the emphasized Following the of as rather and i n t e r e s t Consistent operation, the assets, exclusively [i]n Stations." (Emphasis agreement i n d i s p u t a b l y falls language. definitional appears the f o l l o w i n g p h r a s e : language preceding " a l l of f o r use the above-quoted the f o l l o w i n g a s s e t s title e n t i r e business p r o p e r t i e s used or h e l d ownership A r t i c l e 1.1 right, to the S t a t i o n A s s e t s . " added.) Booth's noncompetition the agreement p r o v i d e s , t h a t Newport a c q u i r e d " a l l [ C l e a r C h a n n e l ] i n and with the 1.1 " language " i n c l u d i n g each of Nothing i n t h i s phrasing i t to only in restricts those items that f o l l o w . 1 '"In c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e , t h e use o f a f o r m o f t h e w o r d ' i n c l u d e ' i s s i g n i f i c a n t , and g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t t o i m p l y t h a t t e r m s l i s t e d i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r w a r d s a r e an i n e x h a u s t i v e l i s t of examples, r a t h e r than a bounded s e t of a p p l i c a b l e i t e m s . " I n r e Mark A n t h o n y C o n s t r . , I n c . , 886 F.2d 1101, 1106 (9th C i r . 1989) ( c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l i n S t a t e ex r e l . R i l e y v. L o r i l l a r d T o b a c c o Co., 1 So. 3d 1, 12 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ) ; see a l s o F r i e d m a n v. P&P, LLC ( I n r e F r i e d m a n ) , 466 B.R. 471, 487 ( 9 t h C i r . 2012) ( " I t i s a w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d canon o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t when t h e w o r d ' i n c l u d e s ' o r ' i n c l u d i n g ' i s 3 1111280 I t appears t h a t a proper a n a l y s i s of t h i s case c o u l d at t h i s p o i n t , For r e s u l t i n g i n a decision i n favor stop o f Newport. what i t i s w o r t h , h o w e v e r , t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s a r e among t h o s e l i s t e d immediately a f t e r the " i n c l u d i n g " phrase: "(d) t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n t r a c t s , a g r e e m e n t s a n d l e a s e s ( i n c l u d i n g employment a g r e e m e n t s , ... ) t o w h i c h [ C l e a r Channel] i s party ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , the ' S t a t i o n C o n t r a c t s ' ) and a l l r i g h t s t h e r e u n d e r ... : ( i ) a l l c o n t r a c t s , a g r e e m e n t s a n d l e a s e s l i s t e d on S c h e d u l e 1.1(d) and ( i i ) a l l o t h e r c o n t r a c t s , a g r e e m e n t s a n d leases that r e l a t e e x c l u s i v e l y to the operation of the S t a t i o n s (Emphasis added.) Much of the controversy i n this case r e v o l v e s around t h e f a c t t h a t Booth's n o n c o m p e t i t i o n agreement was n o t one o f t h e a g r e e m e n t s l i s t e d on S c h e d u l e 1 . 1 ( d ) . if one were t o p r o c e e d p a s t t h e a n a l y t i c a l noted above, that fact would n o t be "stopping Even point" d i s p o s i t i v e f o r two reasons. First, expressly the above-quoted passage states that the contracts from subsection (d) s o l d t o Newport p u r s u a n t f o l l o w e d by a l i s t o f examples, t h o s e examples a r e c o n s i d e r e d i l l u s t r a t i v e r a t h e r than e x h a u s t i v e . " ) ; Puerto Rico Maritime S h i p p i n g A u t h . v. I.C.C., 645 F.2d 1102, 1112 n.5 (D.C. C i r . 1981) ( n o t i n g t h a t i t i s "hornbook l a w " t h a t a l i s t f o l l o w i n g the word " i n c l u d i n g " i s " i l l u s t r a t i v e , n o t e x c l u s i v e " ) ; and B r y a n A. G a r n e r , A D i c t i o n a r y o f Modern L e g a l Usage 431 (2d e d . 1995) ( n o t i n g t h a t t h e t e r m " i n c l u d i n g " " s h o u l d n o t be u s e d t o i n t r o d u c e an e x h a u s t i v e l i s t , f o r i t i m p l i e s t h a t t h e l i s t i s only p a r t i a l " ) . 4 1111280 t o the p u r c h a s e agreement i n c l u d e not o n l y those c o n t r a c t s a g r e e m e n t s l i s t e d on S c h e d u l e 1 . 1 ( d ) , b u t a l s o t h o s e in clause leases (ii), that Stations." i . e . , " a l l other relate contracts, exclusively to the described agreements operation and of the Booth's n o n c o m p e t i t i o n agreement f a l l s w i t h i n t h i s l a t t e r d e s c r i p t i o n . The f a c t t h a t the d r a f t e r of the purchase agreement f a i l e d t o i n c l u d e Booth's n o n c o m p e t i t i o n on and Schedule 1.1(d) casts doubt on the agreement accuracy of a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n found e l s e w h e r e i n the p u r c h a s e agreement t h a t S c h e d u l e 1.1(d) s e t s f o r t h a " c o m p l e t e l i s t o f a l l c o n t r a c t s , a g r e e m e n t s and l e a s e s t h a t r e l a t e e x c l u s i v e l y t o t h e of the S t a t i o n s . " Booth's t h a t we the I n f a c t , g i v e n t h e e x i s t e n c e and n a t u r e noncompetition that this agreement, representation i s simply somehow c o u l d i g n o r e purchase a n a l y s i s and agreement the unassailable incorrect. only discussed create fact at the an ambiguity as of is Even assuming the e f f e c t of the p r o v i s i o n s outset i n the paragraph t h a t f o l l o w s , t h i s would, at best, operation of of this circumstance to the p a r t i e s ' intent. Second, constitutes the a representation "complete list" 5 of that Schedule a l l contracts 1.1(d) relating 1111280 exclusively itself, with to the operation not a b s o l u t e . two explicit c o n t r a c t s not of the stations i s , S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ends "other than" exceptions, n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e d on of these e x c e p t i o n s television i . e . , types Schedule 1.1(d). of Both appear t o d e s c r i b e Booth's n o n c o m p e t i t i o n agreement: " c o n t r a c t s w h i c h were e n t e r e d i n t o i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s and (I) w h i c h a r e t e r m i n a b l e on t h i r t y (30) d a y s ' n o t i c e o r l e s s w i t h o u t p e n a l t y o r premium, o r ( i i ) d i d n o t impose m o n e t a r y o b l i g a t i o n s on [ C l e a r C h a n n e l ] i n 2006, and a r e n o t reasonably e x p e c t e d t o i m p o s e m o n e t a r y o b l i g a t i o n s on [ C l e a r C h a n n e l ] i n 2007, i n e x c e s s o f $250,000 and w h i c h i m p o s e no m a t e r i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e o p e r a t i o n o f the S t a t i o n s . " B a s e d on d e c i s i o n by the foregoing, I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t from t h i s Court today to quash the w r i t of t h i s Court p r e v i o u s l y granted Shaw, J . , in this concurs. 6 case. the certiorari

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.