WEST IMPLEMENT COMPANY INC, A Corporation v. Deere & Company;

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60426
WEST IMPLEMENT COMPANY INC,
A Corporation,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-
Appellant,
v.
DEERE & COMPANY; ET AL,
Defendants,
DEERE & COMPANY,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee,
- - - - - - - -
DEERE & COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
v.
REX MORGAN; ET AL,
Defendants,
WEST IMPLEMENT COMPANY INC,
A Corporation,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
2:04-CV-136

-- 1 of 3 --

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
2
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant West Implement Company argues that the district
court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Deere
& Company with respect to its breach of fiduciary duty claim.
Assuming arguendo that a fiduciary relationship existed between the
parties, because West has not raised a genuine issue of material
fact regarding whether Deere’s conduct violated any of their
agreements, no breach was demonstrated. See Carter Equipment
Company v. John Deere, 681 F.2d 386, 392 n.14 (5th Cir. 1982)
(“activity in conformance with the terms of the contract cannot
amount to misconduct that constitutes a breach of a fiduciary
duty”) (citation omitted). The district court properly granted
summary judgment as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim.
West next argues that the district court erred in allowing
Deere to present its case in chief first. We find that West has
failed to show that the court abused its broad discretion in
controlling the order of proof. See Huddleston v. United States,
485 U.S. 681, 690 (1988).
Finally, West argues that the district court erred in awarding
attorney’s fees to Deere because although the jury could have
awarded punitive damages, it declined to do so. Contrary to West’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
argument otherwise, the Mississippi Supreme Court has made clear
that so long as an award of punitive damages would be proper, “such
an actual awarding of punitive damages is not a prerequisite for
the awarding of attorney fees.” Aqua-Culture Technologies, Ltd.
v. Holly, 677 So.2d 171, 185 (Miss. 1996). The district court’s
award of attorney’s fees is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --