[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
April 9, 2008
No. 07-13369 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 04-02368-CV-WBH-1
AUTOMOBILE PROTECTION CORPORATION,
Plaintiff–Counter-Defendant–Appellee,
versus
MARK F. JONES, III,
Individually,
d.b.a. Protection For Sale,
d.b.a. Ocean Air Dealer Services,
Defendant–Counter-Claimant–Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 9, 2008)
Before BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,* District Judge.
*
Honorable John Antoon, II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Mark F. Jones, III appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of
Automobile Protection Corp. (“APCO”). Because we find no reversible error in
the district court’s judgment, we affirm.
Jones entered into the Independent Contractor Agreement with APCO
whereby he agreed to solicit automobile dealers for the purpose of marketing and
servicing APCO’s extended vehicle service contracts. The relationship between
the parties deteriorated, and APCO ultimately terminated the Agreement. Soon
thereafter, APCO filed suit against Jones primarily seeking a declaratory judgment
regarding the parties’ rights under the Agreement, and Jones responded with
counterclaims of his own seeking declaratory judgment and damages.
Jones’s principal claim is that the Agreement guaranteed him the exclusive
right to market and service APCO’s extended vehicle service contracts in his
geographical territory, and that APCO breached the Agreement by appointing other
agents in the same region and reassigning certain accounts formerly serviced by
Jones to them. We find no error because the Agreement does not provide Jones an
exclusive right to market APCO’s extended vehicle service contracts.
We also find no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to
his claims that APCO breached the Agreement by reassigning Jones’s accounts, by
2
tortiously interfering with Jones’s relationship with his employees, by failing to
allow him a pre-termination opportunity to cure any default in the Agreement, and
by preventing him from servicing his accounts after terminating him for cause.
Finally, we agree with the district court’s determination that the purported
oral agreement concerning Jones’s administration of recreational-vehicle accounts
is not enforceable. It was not memorialized in writing, and no exceptions to
Georgia’s Statute of Frauds, Ga. Code Ann. § 13-5-31, apply in this case.
AFFIRMED.
3