United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT September 7, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 07-30155
Summary Calendar
GULF MARINE EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
C & G BOAT WORKS INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(2:05-CV-6684)
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
In this diversity action, Gulf Marine Equipment, Inc. contests
a summary judgment awarded C & G Boat Works, Inc., concerning their
12 August 2002 brokerage agreement. In it, C & G agreed to pay
Gulf Marine a brokerage fee upon C & G’s obtaining vessel-
construction contracts with five designated companies, including
Rigdon Marine.
Gulf Marine’s principal, Chalin O. Perez, Jr., requested
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Rigdon Marine place C & G on its bid list. Rigdon did so, and C &
G submitted a bid. That bid was rejected. Rigdon Marine solicited
bids for another boat package in April 2003. C & G again placed a
bid and was again rejected. Gulf Marine was not involved with the
second bid.
On 12 August 2003, C & G terminated its brokerage agreement
with Gulf Marine. On 27 June 2004, C & G began discussing with
Rigdon Marine the construction of a vessel; they entered into a
construction contract on 30 September 2004.
Gulf Marine maintains it was the procuring cause of C & G’s
contract with Rigdon and, therefore, is entitled to a commission
pursuant to the 12 August 2002 brokerage agreement. The district
court awarded summary judgment to C & G, concluding: the brokerage
contract had been terminated; and Gulf Marine was not the procuring
cause of - and therefore not entitled to commission for - the C &
G/Rigdon contract. Gulf Marine Equip., Inc. v. C & G Boat Works,
Inc., 471 F. Supp. 2d 679, 684 (E.D. La. 2007).
“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Rothgery
v. Gillespie County, Tex., 491 F.3d 293, 296 (5th Cir. 2007).
Summary judgment shall be granted when “there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and [] the moving party is entitled to a
2
judgment as a matter of law”. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
Essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s
opinion, summary judgment was proper. A broker is sometimes
entitled to commission even when a transaction occurs after the
termination of the brokerage relationship. Where, however,
contracting parties brought together by a broker “fail to make a
sale, part ways, and then come together again on their own
initiative after a lapse of time, the broker does not earn a
commission on the sale if he has no hand in the renewed dealings”.
Snyder v. Champion Realty Corp., 631 F.2d 1253, 1255 n.3 (5th Cir.
1980).
AFFIRMED
3