[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 06-11115 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 14, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 04-01759-CV-WCO-1
ATLANTIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT HOLDING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
ATLANTIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff-
Counter Defendant-
Appellant,
versus
BEACON ROCK CAPITAL LLC,
Defendant-
Counter Claimant-
Third Party Plaintiff-
Appellee,
BEACON ROCK MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendant,
BLAKE SINGER,
Defendant-
Counter Claimant-
Appellee,
BRYANT JAKSIC,
MCDONALD INVESTMENTS, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
THOMAS R. BAKER,
Third Party Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 14, 2006)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Atlantic Investment Management LLC (AIM) filed a seven count complaint
against Beacon Rock Capital LLC, Beacon Rock Management LLC, Margate
Management LP, Blake Singer, Bryant Jaksic (collectively, “Beacon Rock”) and
McDonald Investments, Inc., Larry Bishop, and James Maxwell (collectively,
“McDonald”). The complaint alleges that Beacon Rock breached a contract with
AIM by failing to pay AIM agreed upon consulting fees and that all of the Defendants
had conspired to and actually did defraud AIM of the consulting fees it was owed.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants. AIM appeals the
summary judgments on its breach of contract claim against Beacon Rock, its
fraudulent inducement claim against McDonald, and its fraudulent misrepresentation
claim against all Defendants.
After a thorough review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we affirm. AIM
cannot prevail on its breach of contract claim for the reasons stated by the district
court in its summary judgment order. (R.6-137 at 9-18.) AIM’s claim for fraudulent
inducement also fails as a matter of law because AIM has not presented evidence
sufficient to raise a jury question regarding the falsity of the allegedly fraudulent
representations at the time the representations were made. Finally, summary
judgment was properly granted for Defendants on AIM’s claims of fraudulent
misrepresentation because AIM did not allege in its complaint nor present any
evidence to the district court of damages that AIM sustained as a result of the alleged
fraud that are separate and apart from the benefits AIM claims it should have received
from the contract with Beacon Rock.1
AFFIRMED.
1
On appeal, AIM argues that it incurred costs in uncovering the alleged fraudulent
misrepresentations and that these costs are damages proximately caused by the fraud, separate and
apart from any contract damages. This argument was not made in the district court, and we decline
to consider it.
3