CAPITAL PROMOTIONS, L.L.C. , Plaintiff - Appell ant , vs. BILLY BAXTER , Defendant - Appell ee .
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-468 / 07-1761
Filed November 26, 2008
CAPITAL PROMOTIONS, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
BILLY BAXTER,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert A. Hutchison,
Judge.
Capital Promotions, L.L.C., appeals from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Billy Baxter. AFFIRMED.
Kenneth R. Munro, Des Moines, for appellant.
Jodie L. Clark of Davis Brown Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellee.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.
2
HUITINK, P.J.
Capital Promotions, L.L.C., (Capital) appeals from the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of Billy Baxter (Baxter). It contends the trial court
erred in finding no factual dispute as to Baxter’s motive. We affirm.
Capital brought this suit against Baxter on a theory of intentional
interference with contract.
Capital alleges that it had a promotional boxing
contract with Walter Tyeson Fields beginning in February 2000, which was to
continue through at least February 2005.
Capital claims Billy Baxter had a
management contract with Fields and, beginning in December 2003, Baxter
intentionally and wrongfully interfered with Capital’s contractual relationship with
Fields.
Baxter moved for summary judgment with supporting documentation.
Capital resisted and submitted the affidavit of its principal, Paul Scieszinski, and
an affidavit of attorney Kimberley Baer. The district court concluded that Capital
had
failed to produce any evidence whatsoever that the actions it claims
were taken by Baxter were done for any motive or purpose other
than to promote the interest Baxter had in furthering his contractual
relationship with Fields. This purpose is not wrongful as a matter of
law.
Our review of an order granting summary judgment is for correction of
errors at law. Green v. Racing Ass’n of Cent. Iowa, 713 N.W.2d 234, 238 (Iowa
2006). The district court correctly enters a summary judgment when there is no
genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981. On review, we examine the record before
the district court and determine whether there was a material fact in dispute and
3
if not, whether the district court correctly applied the law. General Car & Truck
Leasing Sys., Inc. v. Lane & Waterman, 557 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa 1996).
On appeal, Capital cites to numerous items which have been placed in the
appendix, but which were never presented to the district court. We will not
consider these items as they are not properly before us. See Iowa R. App.
P. 6.15 (enumerating parts of the record that may be included in appendix).
The elements of an interference with contract claim are: (1) the plaintiff
had a valid contractual relationship with a third party; (2) defendant knew of that
relationship; (3) defendant intentionally and wrongfully interfered with that
relationship; (4) defendant’s action caused the third party to breach its
contractual relationship with the plaintiff or disrupted the contractual relationship
between the third party and the plaintiff by making performance more
burdensome or expensive; and (5) plaintiff was damaged by the interference.
Green, 713 N.W.2d at 243. As in the Green case, “the crux of the argument on
appeal boils down to whether there are any facts associated with the [plaintiffs’]
claim from which a rational jury could find intentional and improper interference.”
Id.
Even assuming the record before the district court established that Baxter
intentionally interfered with Capital’s relationship with Fields, the record does not
support a finding that the interference was wrongful. Capital had a promotional
contract with Fields that ran through August 2005.
An arbitration action in
Nevada established that Capital breached that contract by failing to arrange the
required number of fights during the term of the contract.
Baxter had a
management contract with Fields which required his “best efforts to secure
4
remunerative contests and exhibitions of unarmed combat for [Fields].” Baxter
encouraged Fields to participate in a fight that Capital had arranged. Baxter
arranged a fight with promoter Don King in February 2005. Baxter does not
improperly interfere with Capital’s contract by exercising his own legal rights in
protection of his own financial interests. Id.
Capital argues Scieszinski’s affidavit establishes improper motive on
Baxter’s part. We recognize that a nonmoving party is entitled to all reasonable
inferences in a motion for summary judgment. See Perkins v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 525 N.W.2d 817, 818 (Iowa 1994) (“[S]ummary judgment is like a directed
verdict: Every legitimate inference that reasonably can be deduced from the
evidence should be given to the nonmoving party.”). However, the requirement
to identify specific facts in response to a summary judgment motion includes the
requirement to identify those facts that support the inference sought to be drawn.
Green, 557 N.W.2d at 246. Capital has not done so.
Scienszinski’s affidavit contains countless statements of purported fact for
which there is no apparent basis or personal knowledge.
documentation is offered for Scienzinski’s allegations.1
No supporting
Scieszinski’s belief
alone—no matter how strong—is insufficient to create a factual dispute as to
improper motive. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to
Baxter. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
1
For example, Scieszinski avers that numerous people acted as agents or
representatives of Baxter, but the only documentation offered to the court contradicted
these allegations.
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.
