Bedsole v. Action Outdoor Adver. JV LLC

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, as questions of fact remained regarding whether the parties established the contract's subject matter, defined the consideration and mutually assented to all essential terms.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Benjamin K. Bedsole filed suit against Action Outdoor Advertising JV, LLC, Steve Galberaith, John A. Hartrampf, Jr., Laurence T. McCurdy III, Galberaith Holdings, LLC, Hartrampf Holdings, LLC, and McCurdy Holdings, LLC, collectively, “the defendants”, alleging that the defendants orally agreed to pay him for an equity interest in millions of dollars of billboard assets. Bedsole’s claims, as amended, include breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive damages. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and Bedsole appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

A party is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”1 Summary judgment is proper if the defendants “present evidence negating an essential element of the plaintiff’s claims or establish from the record an absence of evidence to support those claims. If the defendants establish those requirements, the plaintiff must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.”2 The appellate court conducts a de novo review of an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment, viewing “the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”3

Bedsole v. Action Outdoor Adver. JV LLC

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, as questions of fact remained regarding whether the parties established the contract's subject matter, defined the consideration and mutually assented to all essential terms.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report