WILLIAM J. BURFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACCOUNTING PRACTICE SALES, INC. and GARY HOLMES, Defendants-Appellees., 786 F.3d 582

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-Summary judgment was erroneously granted in a breach of contract claim based on a marketing and sales contract because the contract clearly stated that the company could not terminate the agreement unless the marketer violated it, and thus, the company could not terminate the contract at will, and the company's sole argument for summary judgment was that the contract was terminable at will; [2]-Where the company dismissed its Lanham Act claim with prejudice shortly after the district court ruled in the company's favor on the marketer's breach of contract claim, the marketer was not entitled to attorney fees under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1117(a)(3) because the dismissal did not show that the claim lacked merit or that it was filed solely to harass the marketer, and the record did not show that the company could not have supported its Lanham Act claim with evidence.