Monopoly Hotel Group, LLC v. Hyatt Hotels Corporation, No. 16-16126 (11th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-16126 Date Filed: 07/31/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-16126 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01250-AT MONOPOLY HOTEL GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (July 31, 2017) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-16126 Date Filed: 07/31/2017 Page: 2 of 3 Monopoly Hotel Group, LLC, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Hyatt Hotels Corporation and against its complaint of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Monopoly entered into a licensing agreement with Hawthorn International, LLC, that permitted Monopoly to develop hotels abroad using the Hawthorn Suites brand. The chief executive officer of Hawthorn later sent Monopoly a letter stating that if Monopoly would agree to a few conditions— including allowing Hyatt to have a role in approving development projects submitted by Monopoly—then Hawthorn would alter certain terms in the licensing agreement. Monopoly agreed. Monopoly asserts that this agreement created a contract between Hyatt and Monopoly either because the chief executive officer of Hawthorn sent the letter on behalf of Hyatt or because Hyatt accepted the benefits of the contract by approving development projects submitted by Monopoly. Monopoly also asserts that it was in a fiduciary relationship with Hyatt. This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether Hyatt and Monopoly were parties to a contract; and (2) whether Hyatt and Monopoly were in a fiduciary relationship. Monopoly presents no evidence that warrants a reasonable inference that Hyatt was a party to a contract with Monopoly, nor does Monopoly offer any evidence that Hyatt had a fiduciary duty to Monopoly. For these reasons and the 2 Case: 16-16126 Date Filed: 07/31/2017 Page: 3 of 3 reasons stated in the well-reasoned order of the district court dated August 16, 2016, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Hyatt. 3
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.
