Lockheed Martin v. Gerace

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lockheed Martin v. Gerace

869 So. 2d 774, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5239, 2004 WL 813153

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 16, 2004

DocketNo. 5D03-489

StatusPublished

This text of 869 So. 2d 774 (Lockheed Martin v. Gerace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lockheed Martin v. Gerace, 869 So. 2d 774, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5239, 2004 WL 813153 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This summary judgment case is somewhat unusual because of its size. There are ninety-four volumes of record and dozens of depositions and affidavits. In all this, however, we agree with the conclusion of the trial court that there is simply no evidence to support a legally sufficient [775]*775claim of tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy or unjust enrichment against any defendant. And the evidence of any breach of Mr. Gerace’s duty of loyalty to Lockheed Martin, such as his involvement in the September 30, 2000, meeting is, at best, de minimis. Entry of summary final judgment was proper.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This summary judgment case is somewhat unusual because of its size. There are ninety-four volumes of record and dozens of depositions and affidavits. In all this, however, we agree with the conclusion of the trial court that there is simply no evidence to support a legally sufficient [775]*775claim of tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy or unjust enrichment against any defendant. And the evidence of any breach of Mr. Gerace’s duty of loyalty to Lockheed Martin, such as his involvement in the September 30, 2000, meeting is, at best, de minimis. Entry of summary final judgment was proper.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

869 So. 2d 774, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5239, 2004 WL 813153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockheed-martin-v-gerace-fladistctapp-2004.