American Infoage, LLC v. Regions Bank, No. 15-13567 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-13567 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-13567 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cv-01533-SDM-JSS SAGO NETWORKS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff, AMERICAN INFOAGE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus REGIONS BANK, an Alabama banking corporation, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (May 27, 2016) Case: 15-13567 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 2 of 2 Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, DUBINA, Circuit Judge, and HUCK,∗ District Judge. PER CURIAM: American Infoage, LLC, brought this lawsuit against Regions Bank after Regions imposed a “swap breakage fee” under the parties’ written swap agreements. Infoage asserted claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings, and unjust enrichment. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Regions with respect to some of the claims and, after a bench trial, entered judgment in favor of Regions on the rest of the claims. This is Infoage’s appeal. 1 After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Regions, which was filed on September 25, 2014, as well as its judgment in favor of Regions based on its thorough and well-reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of law filed on July 9, 2015. AFFIRMED. 2 ∗ Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. 1 The district court also entered judgment against another plaintiff, Sago Networks, LLC, on an unrelated claim and Sago appealed. In a previous order, this Court granted Sago’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal. 2 This case was originally scheduled for oral argument but was removed from the oral argument calendar by unanimous consent of the panel under 11th Circuit Rule 34-3(f). 2
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.
