Municipal Gas Authority v. Teton Fuels, No. 08-12073 (11th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 08-12073 ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT December 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 06-00186-CV-JTC-1 MUNICIPAL GAS AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TETON FUELS MID-GEORGIA, LLC, EI FUELS CORP., MID-GEORGIA COGEN, L.P., THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, CAITHNESS TETON OPERATIING SERVICES, LLC, AQUILA FUELS MID-GEORGIA, INC., CAITHNESS OPERATING CO., LLC, CAITHNESS ENERGY, Defendants-Appellants, TETON SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _________________________ (December 18, 2008) Before WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and ALBRITTON,* District Judge. PER CURIAM: Teton Fuels Mid-Georgia, LLC ( Teton ) appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment on behalf of the Municipal Gas Authority of Georgia ( MGAG ). Teton contracted with MGAG for its natural gas supply. The district court granted MGAG summary judgment on its contract interpretation claim, concluding that only quantities or volumes of gas requested prior to the 4:15 deadline set forth in the second paragraph of the Dispatch Procedures qualify as nominations of gas. Mun. Gas Auth. of Ga. v. Teton Fuels Mid-Georgia, LLC, No. 1:06-CV-186-JTC (N.D. Ga. Mar. 26, 2008) (order granting summary judgment on the intra-day issue). We review a district court s grant of summary judgment de novo. Mangieri v. DCH Healthcare Auth., 304 F.3d 1072, 1075 (11th Cir. 2002). We * Honorable W. Harold Albritton, III, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, sitting by designation. 2 review a district court s interpretation of a contract de novo. Daewoo Motor Am., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 459 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2006). Upon review of the record and the parties briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court correctly interpreted the contract. It is well established that a court should avoid an interpretation of a contract which renders portions of the language of the contract meaningless. Bd. of Regents v. A. B. & E., Inc., 357 S.E.2d 100, 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). Here, the interpretation urged by Teton reads Section 3.2's nomination language out of the contract. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment. AFFIRM. 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.
