Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Broadband Dynamics, LLC v. SatCom Marketing, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

March 1, 2018

BROADBAND DYNAMICS, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
SATCOM MARKETING, INC., et al., Defendants/Appellees.

         Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2016-003476 The Honorable Dawn M. Bergin, Judge

          Wilenchik & Bartness, P.C., Phoenix By Dennis I. Wilenchik (argued) Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

          Provident Law, PLLC, Scottsdale By Christopher J. Charles, Edwin G. Anderson Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

          Berke Law Firm, PLLC, Phoenix By Lori V. Berke (argued), Jody C. Corbett Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

          Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

          OPINION

          McMURDIE, Judge

         ¶1 Broadband Dynamics, LLC ("Broadband") appeals the superior court's order dismissing its complaint against SatCom Marketing, Inc. and SatCom Marketing, LLC ("SatCom"). We reverse and remand to the superior court, holding that when a written contract provides for obligations that would give rise to both a claim for debt on an open account and a claim for breach of contract, the six-year statute of limitations under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12-548 applies to the claims that are based on damages arising from the breach of contract. Broadband's breach of contract claim was based on obligations provided for in the written contract between the parties, which were separate from the open account obligations, and therefore the superior court erred by barring Broadband's claim under the three-year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-543.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]

         ¶2 In September 2008, Broadband and SatCom entered a Service Agreement in which Broadband would provide SatCom with dedicated voice and telecommunications services. The term of the Service Agreement was 12 months, with an effective date of October 22, 2008. The agreement provided an automatic 12-month renewal that could be canceled with 90 days' notice prior to the anniversary date. The Service Agreement provided, in relevant part: (1) the parties intended to establish an open account; (2) Broadband would invoice monthly based on usage; and (3) SatCom would pay the amount due by the 21st of the following month. The Service Agreement also provided for liquidated damages as follows:

Termination Charge. If Customer terminates the Agreement without cause, or if Broadband terminates the agreement for cause, Customer will pay their total dollar commitment to Broadband as defined as the term of this agreement or any months remaining in term inclusive of any renewal periods multiplied by the total of the revenue and usage commitments. Customer hereby acknowledges that any termination charges payable under this section are a realistic estimate of the damages Broadband will suffer for the termination. (Emphasis added).[2]

         ¶3 In January 2016, Broadband sued SatCom for breach of contract and requested the principal sum, calculated per the Termination Charge, of $100, 044.93 ($14, 334.43 (revenue commitment) plus $85, 710.50 (usage commitment)), plus interest from April 20, 2011. SatCom moved to dismiss, arguing that Broadband's claim was barred by the three-year limitations period governing open accounts. See A.R.S. § 12-543(2). In response, Broadband argued the six-year limitations period applied because the claim was premised on SatCom's termination of the Service Agreement, not the balance due on an open account. See A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(1). Following supplemental briefing, the superior court agreed with SatCom and dismissed the complaint as time barred, concluding:

[T]he Termination Charge is part of an open account agreement between the same parties and constitutes a penalty for failing to comply with the terms of the open account. In addition, the calculation of the Termination Charge is based upon prior usage or service. In short, the Termination Charge is too intertwined with the services required by the Agreement to treat it as a separate contract.

         Following entry of a final judgment, see Ariz. R. Civ. P. 54(c), Broadband timely appealed. We have jurisdiction ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.