BCD v. BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1279

BCD LLC; ROSEN CAMPUS I LLC; CR MERC LLC; ROSEN WT
MANAGEMENT LLC,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

BMW MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC, formerly known as BMW
Manufacturing Corp.,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; DWIGHT F. DRAKE;
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP; CLEMSON UNIVERSITY;
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION; CLEMSON UNIVERSITY REAL
ESTATE FOUNDATION; AMREC; THE FURMAN COMPANY; STEPHEN P.
NAVARRO,

Parties-in-Interest.

No. 08-1448

BCD LLC; ROSEN CAMPUS I LLC; CR MERC LLC; ROSEN WT
MANAGEMENT LLC,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

BMW MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC, formerly known as BMW
Manufacturing Corp.,

Defendant – Appellee,
 and

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; DWIGHT F. DRAKE;
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP; CLEMSON UNIVERSITY;
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION; CLEMSON UNIVERSITY REAL
ESTATE FOUNDATION; AMREC; THE FURMAN COMPANY; STEPHEN P.
NAVARRO,

Parties-in-Interest.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:05-cv-02152-GRA)

Argued: September 22, 2009 Decided: January 8, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and Mark S. DAVIS, United
States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia,
sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Davis wrote the opinion,
in which Judge Motz and Judge King joined.

ARGUED: James Robinson Gilreath, GILREATH LAW FIRM, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellants. Henry Donald Sellers,
HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., Carmen V.
Ganjehsani, CARPENTER APPEALS & TRIAL SUPPORT, LLC, Columbia,
South Carolina; William M. Hogan, GILREATH LAW FIRM, Greenville,
South Carolina; Charles W. Whetstone, Jr., Cheryl F. Perkins,
WHETSTONE MYERS PERKINS & YOUNG, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina;
V. Laniel Chapman, Bruce A. Byrholdt, CHAPMAN BYRHOLDT & YON,
Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellants. J. W. Matthews, III,
Christopher B. Major, HAYNSWORTH, SINKLER & BOYD, PA,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
DAVIS, District Judge:

Clifford Rosen, a developer serving as the principal behind

the entities of BCD LLC, Rosen Campus I LLC, CR-MERC LLC, and

Rosen-WT Management LLC, appeals from the grant of summary

judgment against him on his claims of tortious interference with

contract, intentional interference with prospective contractual

relations, and civil conspiracy. The district court disposed of

the case on alternative grounds, holding that Rosen’s claims

were barred under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and that summary

judgment was appropriate because there were no genuine issues of

material fact.

It is well-established under the doctrine of constitutional

avoidance that a court should avoid deciding a constitutional

question when it can dispose of a case on another basis.

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936)

(Brandeis, J., concurring). Finding that Rosen’s claims can be

decided on non-constitutional grounds of state contractual law,

it is thus not necessary to reach the question of whether

Rosen’s claims were barred under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the grant of summary

judgment.

I.

This action arose out of a dispute related to the early

developmental stages of a project that culminated in the

3
construction of Clemson University’s (“Clemson”) Carroll A.

Campbell, Jr. Graduate Engineering Center (“GEC”). In 2001,

Appellee BMW (“BMW”) and Clemson, a public university located in

South Carolina, explored possible educational initiatives on

which they could collaborate. Clemson raised the idea of

developing a wind tunnel that would cater to the racing industry

and made a formal presentation of the idea to BMW executives.

BMW indicated that it was not interested in funding a wind

tunnel, but proposed an alternative plan of partnering with

Clemson to establish the GEC as part of Clemson’s International

Center for Automotive Research (“CU-ICAR”).

Clemson similarly approached Rosen about the possibility of

developing a motorsports facility incorporating a wind tunnel,

and Rosen expressed interest in the idea. For the purposes of

negotiating an agreement, Rosen thus formed CR-MERC LLC (“CR-

MERC”). The Clemson University Foundation (“CUF”), the

fundraising arm of Clemson, formed a subsidiary called AMREC LLC

(“AMREC”) for the same purpose.

On April 4, 2002, Rosen (through CR-MERC) and Clemson

(through AMREC) signed a nine-page “agreement” (the “2002

Agreement”) to lay the foundation for the proposed development

of the facility. The 2002 Agreement indicated that the laws of

the state of South Carolina would govern all issues arising out

of the agreement. Under its terms, the facility and surrounding

4
campus would consist of a combination of parcels, some donated

by Rosen and the remainder donated by AMREC.

The 2002 Agreement, however, called for the parties to

reach further agreement on twelve subject areas, identified as

“Exhibits,” by May 1, 2002. Pursuant to Paragraph 10, the 2002

Agreement thus remained terminable at will by either party if

the parties could not reach an agreement on all of the subject

areas. Specifically, the provision stated that if the parties

failed “to agree to any of the Exhibits,” then “at any time

after May 1, 2002, either party may, upon ten (10) days notice

to the other party cancel this Agreement, whereupon the parties

shall be relieved of all obligations to each other.” J.A. 800

(emphasis in original). 1

The subject areas covered by the Exhibits encompassed

material aspects of the deal, including how the land would be

divided and developed. At a drafting session, however, the

parties failed to reach an agreement on all of the subject

areas. In particular, the parties marked two Exhibits as “NOT

USED”: “Exhibit F,” the “Reciprocal Easements and Operating

Agreement” and “Exhibit H,” the “Master Association Agreement.”

1
Citations to “J.A.” refer to the contents of the joint
appendix filed by the parties in this proceeding.

5
The parties also did not sign “Exhibit G,” which would have

covered the allocation of parcels of land.

Rosen’s attorneys thereafter commenced the drafting of a

revised “Amended and Restated Master Agreement” to incorporate

the non-used Exhibits F and H within a combined agreement

entitled the “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions,

Restrictions, and Easements” (“CCR”). The parties, however,

never executed either of these documents.

Meanwhile, during the summer and fall of 2002, BMW and

Clemson continued their negotiations and preparations in

furtherance of the plan to construct the GEC. BMW identified

the GEC as one of the projects that could be supported pursuant

to the newly-enacted Bond Act, under which the State of South

Carolina set aside funds for qualifying infrastructure projects

that promoted economic development within the state. See S.C.

Code Ann. § 11-41-10 et. seq. (2002). On July 29, 2002, the

South Carolina Department of Commerce (“SCDOC”) formally

proposed incentives for BMW under the Bond Act, including $25

million earmarked for the development of the GEC. After the

formal announcement, BMW and Clemson drafted a “Memorandum of

Expectations” with respect to the GEC.

Rosen began to urge Clemson and BMW to consider utilizing

property that he owned as the potential site for the GEC. BMW,

however, emphasized the need to distinguish the state-funded GEC

6
from the privately-funded wind tunnel in which Rosen was

involved, and Clemson declined to commit itself to using Rosen’s

property. Rosen, in turn, interpreted BMW’s criticism of the

wind tunnel project as a reflection of the company’s

dissatisfaction with its lack of control over the development of

the wind tunnel. According to Rosen, this sentiment prompted

BMW to launch a series of efforts designed to kill his project.

In particular, he claims that BMW exerted pressure upon private,

governmental, and state-supported entities, including Clemson,

to cease negotiations with him.

In January 2003, Rosen sent a letter to Clemson that

expressed concerns about the progress of the wind tunnel

project. Clemson interpreted this letter as an indication that

Rosen was no longer committed to the project, but Rosen

subsequently sent another letter reiterating his determination

to construct the wind tunnel. Specifically referencing the

terminable-at-will clause of the 2002 Agreement, Clemson’s

President responded with a letter on March 12, 2003 notifying

Rosen that the 2002 Agreement constituted a mere letter of

intent and that the wind tunnel deal was not final because all

of the Exhibits to the 2002 Agreement had not been completed.

A couple weeks later, Clemson emailed Rosen a new proposed

deal structure with two alternatives entitled “Option A” and

“Option B.” In April 2003, Rosen made a counterproposal to

7
Clemson. Clemson found Rosen’s counterproposal unacceptable,

however. At this time, Clemson determined that it needed to

consider a different site for the GEC and began to shift its

focus toward the acquisition of a parcel of land separate from

the property Rosen was acquiring – an option Clemson referred to

as “Option C.” Rosen subsequently continued to seek amendments

to the old deal structure, but Clemson’s attorneys drafted a

letter on May 12, 2003 stating that, “[a]s there is currently no

agreement, nothing will be amended.” J.A. 1791.

Thereafter, Clemson and Rosen renewed negotiations under an

entirely different deal structure and executed the Real Estate

Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “2003 Agreement”) on October 6,

2003. The 2003 Agreement provided for the sale of land for the

GEC and addressed all material subject areas, including those

areas that the 2002 Agreement had failed to address.

Furthermore, the 2003 Agreement provided that the 2002 Agreement

was “terminated for all purposes without any liabilities to any

of the parties[.]” J.A. 690.

Rosen now characterizes his execution of the 2003 Agreement

as a mere attempt to mitigate his damages and argues that he

lost valuable property rights under the new deal. He thus filed

this action in federal district court. BMW filed a motion for

summary judgment, which the district court granted. Rosen

subsequently filed a timely appeal.

8
 In this appeal, Rosen contests the district court’s grant

of summary judgment, arguing that BMW was the direct cause of

the unraveling of his project and that he is therefore entitled

to recover damages for lost profits, development fees, and

management fees. We disagree. In light of the fact that: (1)

the parties never reached agreement on all of the essential

terms of the alleged 2002 Agreement; (2) the 2003 Agreement

expressly terminated the 2002 Agreement for all purposes; and

(3) BMW at all times acted pursuant to its legitimate business

interests, we find that summary judgment was appropriate.

II.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo on appeal,

applying the same standard as the trial court without deference

to the trial court. Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915

F.2d 121, 123 (4th Cir. 1990). Summary judgment is appropriate

when the court, viewing the record as a whole and in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party, determines that there

exists “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED.

R. CIV. P. 56(c); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986); Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics

Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 284 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc). A

genuine issue of material fact is raised only if a reasonable

9
jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on each element

necessary to its case. Banca Cremi, S.A. v. Alex. Brown & Sons,

Inc., 132 F.3d 1017, 1027 (4th Cir. 1997). As the nonmoving

party below, Rosen had the ultimate burden of demonstrating a

genuine issue of material fact for trial. See Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

Although the court must draw all justifiable inferences in

favor of the nonmoving party, the nonmoving party must rely on

more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building

of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a

scintilla of evidence. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; Stone v.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 188, 191 (4th Cir. 1997).

Rather, the evidence must be such that the fact-finder

reasonably could find for the nonmoving party. See Anderson,

477 U.S. at 252. Guided by this procedural standard of review,

we analyze the merits of Rosen’s appeal.

III.

On appeal, Rosen contends that the district court erred in

granting summary judgment against him in light of the evidence

presented. We disagree. At the outset, it is important to

underscore the precise nature of Rosen’s business relationship

with Clemson. In particular, the parties were in the formative

stages of negotiation and had never solidified the essential and

10
material terms of the document known as the “2002 Agreement.”

The 2003 Agreement, moreover, terminated the 2002 Agreement for

all purposes. On these facts, Rosen’s remedies against Clemson

are substantially limited.

A.

Rosen first claims that BMW tortiously interfered with his

contract with Clemson. Under South Carolina law, the elements

of a cause of action for tortious interference with contract

are: (1) the existence of the contract; (2) the other party’s

knowledge of the contract; (3) the other party’s intentional

procurement of a breach of the contract; (4) the absence of

justification; and (5) resulting damage. Webb v. Elrod, 418

S.E.2d 559, 561 (S.C. Ct. App. 1992). A tortious interference

claim thus “presupposes the existence of a valid, enforceable

contract.” Jackson v. Bi-Lo Stores, Inc., 437 S.E.2d 168, 171

(S.C. Ct. App. 1993). The district court found that Rosen did

not show a genuine issue of material fact as to this cause of

action. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

Rosen, we similarly find that Rosen has not created a genuine

issue.

Taking all of Rosen’s allegations as true, there is not a

valid, enforceable contract to support Rosen’s tortious

interference claim. In order to have a valid and enforceable

contract under South Carolina law, there must be a meeting of

11
the minds between the parties with regard to all the essential

and material terms of the agreement. Player v. Chandler, 382

S.E.2d 891, 893-94 (S.C. 1989). There can be no contract so

long as, in the contemplation of the parties thereto, something

remains to be done to establish contract relations. Hughes v.

Edwards, 220 S.E.2d 231, 234 (S.C. 1975).

Here, the record before us evinces no meeting of the minds

between Rosen and Clemson with respect to all of the essential

and material terms. Although the 2002 Agreement is, in essence,

an “agreement to agree,” such an agreement does not amount to a

contract under South Carolina law. Trident Constr. Co., Inc. v.

Austin Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 566, 575 (D.S.C. 2003) (citing

Blanton Enters., Inc. v. Burger King Corp., 680 F. Supp. 753,

770 n.20 (D.S.C. 1988)). The parties merely agreed to enter

into negotiations to reach an agreement, but subsequently failed

to reach an actual agreement on essential terms pertaining to

land allocations, divisions of parcels, and restrictive

covenants for the property. See Fici v. Koon, 642 S.E.2d 602,

604-05 (S.C. 2007) (noting that, in a real estate contract, a

description sufficient to show with reasonable certainty the

location of the land and its boundaries is necessary); Player,

382 S.E.2d at 893-94 (finding a description of the extent and

boundary of the property to be an essential term of a contract

pertaining to real estate). Therefore, inasmuch as substantial

12
and necessary terms remained open for future negotiation and the

parties failed to reach an agreement on these terms, the 2002

Agreement never rose to the level of an enforceable agreement.

See Burbach Broadcasting Co. of Delaware v. Elkins Radio Corp.,

278 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2002) (stating that, in preliminary

negotiations, when terms are indefinite and basic terms have not

been agreed upon, there is no basis to fashion a remedy, and

thus no enforceable contract). 2

Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the parties had formed

a valid, enforceable contract, Rosen’s tortious interference

claim still would not pass muster and withstand summary judgment

because there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning

2
At oral argument, the parties disputed whether the
terminable-at-will provision of the 2002 Agreement also rendered
the agreement illusory. Ordinarily, a terminable-at-will
provision would render contractual promises illusory and the
contract would thus be unenforceable for lack of consideration.
Glascock v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 104 F.2d 475, 476 (4th
Cir. 1939); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 77 cmt. a
(1981) (stating that “[w]ords of promise which by their terms
make performance entirely optional with the ‘promisor’ do not
constitute a promise” and, instead, constitute an illusory
promise). A notice provision, however, limits the right to
cancel and constitutes sufficient consideration to prevent a
contract from being illusory. See Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins.
Co. v. Ward, 429 F.3d 83, 91 n.5 (4th Cir. 2005). Although the
2002 Agreement contained a ten-day notice provision, this
provision failed to create a justified expectation of
performance because there was no meeting of the minds as to the
essential elements of the underlying agreement, resulting in a
failure to execute an enforceable contract in the first
instance.

13
the element of “absence of justification.” Absence of

justification means conduct that is carried out for an improper

purpose, such as malice or spite, or through improper means,

such as violence or intimidation. Waldrep Bros. Beauty Supply,

Inc. v. Wynn Beauty Supply Co., 992 F.2d 59, 62 (4th Cir. 1993)

(applying South Carolina law). A party is justified, however,

when acting in the advancement of its legitimate business

interests or legal rights. Webb, 418 S.E.2d at 561.

Furthermore, as long as some legitimate purpose or right exists,

the improper purpose must predominate in order to create

liability. Crandall Corp. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 395

S.E.2d 179, 180 (S.C. 1990).

Rosen has not offered any evidence that BMW utilized any

“improper means,” such as violence, threats, bribery, fraud,

misrepresentation, deceit, or duress, to interfere in his

relations with Clemson. See Waldrep Bros., 992 F.2d at 63

(suggesting that such actions would constitute “improper

means”). Conceding that BMW did not utilize “improper means,”

Rosen nonetheless maintains that BMW’s conduct was carried out

for an “improper purpose.” In particular, he argues that BMW’s

only interest was to decouple Rosen from his property so that

BMW could assume full control over the project. This alleged

interest, however, does not exhibit the requisite malice or

spite to constitute an improper purpose.

14
 Moreover, even if we assume an improper purpose, BMW still

could not be held liable because the improper purpose would not

predominate over BMW’s legitimate purpose. At all times, BMW

acted in pursuit of its legitimate interests in founding an

educational partnership with Clemson. As the sponsor of the GEC

under the Bond Act, BMW was an indispensable participant in the

establishment of the graduate institution. Contrary to Rosen’s

assertions, BMW thus remained motivated by a legitimate desire

to find a suitable location for the GEC and retained a

legitimate interest in Clemson’s land acquisition negotiations

that pertained to the GEC.

In sum, given that Rosen and Clemson never reached a

meeting of the minds on all the essential terms and BMW’s

conduct did not involve any improper means or purpose, Rosen has

not presented evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of

material fact concerning “the existence of the contract” or “the

absence of justification.” The district court thus properly

granted summary judgment in favor of BMW on the claim of

tortious interference with contract.

B.

Rosen’s second cause of action asserted that, even if the

2002 Agreement failed to create a valid and enforceable

contract, it nonetheless represented an expectancy with which

BMW interfered. The execution of the 2003 Agreement, however,

15
renders this argument meritless. Therefore, the district

court’s grant of summary judgment was proper.

To assert a claim of tortious interference with prospective

contractual relations, the plaintiff must prove that the

defendant: (1) intentionally interfered with the plaintiff’s

potential contractual relations; (2) for an improper purpose or

by improper methods; (3) causing injury to the plaintiff.

Crandall, 395 S.E.2d at 180. A claim for prospective

interference cannot stand where the plaintiff is able to

consummate a contract with another party. See Egrets Pointe

Townhouses Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Fairfield Cmtys., Inc.,

870 F. Supp. 110, 116 (D.S.C. 1994). Under South Carolina law,

it is irrelevant that a plaintiff could have realized a better

deal “but for” the actions of the defendant because the term

“potential” contractual relations does not mean “full”

contractual relations. See id. At the core, a cause of action

for interference with prospective contractual relations will

thus lie only where “the aggrieved party [was] . . .

unsuccessful in acquiring an expected contract due to a third

party’s intentional and wrongful actions.” Id.

In light of this standard, Rosen cannot assert a viable

claim for interference with prospective contractual relations

because Rosen’s execution of the 2003 Agreement, which expressly

terminated the 2002 Agreement for all purposes, precluded any

16
claim he otherwise would have had. See id. (holding that

“[b]ecause there was a valid contract in existence [between

plaintiff and another party] at the inception of this action, .

. . the existence of that contract precludes any recovery on a

claim for interference with prospective contractual

relations.”). Similarly, Rosen cannot recover on a theory that

the 2003 Agreement was less profitable to him than it would have

been without BMW’s interference. See id.

As previously explained, moreover, Rosen has not

demonstrated that BMW acted for an improper purpose or utilized

improper methods, which is a necessary element of an intentional

interference with prospective contractual relations claim.

Crandall, 395 S.E.2d at 180. Consequently, viewing the evidence

in the light most favorable to Rosen and taking his allegations

as true, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the

district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of BMW

on the claim of intentional interference with prospective

contractual relations.

C.

Rosen’s third cause of action alleged that BMW engaged in a

civil conspiracy with agents and representatives of Clemson and

the State of South Carolina. Under South Carolina law, a civil

conspiracy claim contains the following elements: (1) a

combination of two or more persons, (2) for the purpose of

17
injuring the plaintiff, (3) which causes the plaintiff special

damage. Lee v. Chesterfield Gen. Hosp. Inc., 344 S.E.2d 379,

382 (S.C. 1986) (citations omitted). The difference between

civil and criminal conspiracy is that “in criminal conspiracy

the agreement is the gravamen of the offense, whereas in civil

actions, the gravamen of the tort is the damage resulting to

plaintiff from an overt act done pursuant to a common design.”

Vaught v. Waites, 387 S.E.2d 91, 95 (S.C. Ct. App. 1989)

(citation omitted). To recover on a civil conspiracy claim, the

plaintiff must therefore demonstrate that the “object of the

conspiracy was to ruin or damage the business of another.”

Waldrep Bros., 992 F.2d at 63.

In this case, there is no genuine issue of material fact

because the record is devoid of any evidence suggesting a

conspiracy. Indeed, no facts have been presented that could

lead a court to conclude that BMW’s objective was to injure

Rosen’s business. Although Rosen claims that there were

meetings, telephone calls, and emails exchanged between BMW,

AMREC, and AMREC’s attorneys plotting ways to leverage him to

give up his property and contract rights, such claims are

insufficient. Rosen has not provided a scintilla of evidence

that would suggest that BMW possessed the requisite motive to

injure. Rather, the record indicates that BMW was motivated by

its desire to establish the GEC, which in and of itself does not

18
imply an explicit desire to damage Rosen’s business. The only

harm that BMW may have intended to cause Rosen was the

incidental harm to a competitor that is necessarily part of all

legitimate business competition.

That increased benefits for one entity may come at the

expense of a competing entity is merely a fact of life in a

market economy. Id. Consequently, although a party cannot

interfere with a contract because of malice or spite, it is

altogether legitimate for BMW to engage in business competition

with Rosen’s entities. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 768

(1979) (“One who intentionally causes a third person . . . not

to continue an existing contract terminable at will does not

interfere improperly with the other’s relation if . . . his

purpose is at least in part to advance his interest in competing

with the other.”). 3 Sanctioning BMW for obtaining a contract

with Clemson would thus unjustly punish BMW and Clemson. The

evidence in this case demonstrated that Clemson terminated its

3
Granted, if Rosen and Clemson had executed a contract that
was not terminable at will, there would be “established
interests that are not subject to interference on the basis of
competition alone.” RESTATEMENT, supra, § 768 cmt. a. However,
where the contract at issue is terminable at will, competition
is not an improper basis for interference. See RESTATEMENT, supra,
§ 768 cmt. i (“If the third person is free to terminate his
contractual relation with the plaintiff when he chooses, . . .
any interference with it that induces its termination is
primarily an interference with the future relation between the
parties, and the plaintiff has no legal assurance of them.”).

19
2002 Agreement with Rosen because of its dissatisfaction with

the progress and development of the wind tunnel project and its

reasonable belief that the GEC did not require a wind tunnel.

Punishing BMW under these facts would not only undermine BMW’s

legitimate business negotiations, but also effectively deprive

Clemson of its entitlement to seek out those ventures most

aligned with its institutional goals.

Furthermore, fatal to Rosen’s claim for civil conspiracy

against BMW is the fact that he has not adequately alleged

special damages in connection with the claim. Under South

Carolina law, the damages allegedly resulting from the

conspiracy must not overlap with or be subsumed by the damages

allegedly resulting from the other claims. See Vaught, 387

S.E.2d at 95. Rosen therefore must allege and prove damages

that occurred as a result of the alleged conspiracy itself, in

addition to any damages alleged as a result of any other claims.

See id. Here, the damages sought for conspiracy, namely loss of

profits and loss of development and management fees, are

identical to the damages sought in Rosen’s other causes of

action. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of BMW with respect to the claim of

civil conspiracy.

20
 IV.

Viewing the record as a whole and in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party, we conclude that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that BMW is entitled

to a judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order granting summary judgment.

AFFIRMED

21