{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-14","fingerprint":"ewai:us:88b5b2","proof":"sha256:1a64627316560958b32ca4cca0322771abd6570e54f4819fbac7d67bf717b8be","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"For the Eighth Circuit","paragraphs":["para_3"]},{"title":"No. 25-1618","paragraphs":["para_5"]},{"title":"T&T Management, Inc., a Florida corporation","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Plaintiff - Appellant","paragraphs":["para_8"]},{"title":"Choice Hotels International, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Sunshine Fund Port","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Orange, LLC, Florida limited liability company; Country Inn & Suites by","paragraphs":["para_11"]},{"title":"Defendants - Appellees","paragraphs":["para_13"]},{"title":"Appeal from United States District Court","paragraphs":["para_15","para_16"]},{"title":"Submitted: February 11, 2026","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Filed: June 25, 2026","paragraphs":["para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22"]},{"title":"T&T Management, Inc., sued Choice Hotels International, Inc.; Country Inn","paragraphs":["para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30"]},{"title":"In 2011, T&T was licensed to operate a Country Inn & Suites hotel in Port","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Orange, Florida. The License Agreement provided T&T a 15-year license that","paragraphs":["para_33","para_34"]},{"title":"In 2016, Radisson bought the Country brand. Radisson then sold the Country","paragraphs":["para_36","para_37"]},{"title":"Before acquiring the Country brand, Choice licensed Sunshine to operate a","paragraphs":["para_39"]},{"title":"The Agreement states (emphasis added):","paragraphs":["para_41"]},{"title":"(a) For the Term Of the Agreement (“Protected Term”) as long","paragraphs":["para_43"]},{"title":"Agreement; and (ii) continuously Operates the Hotel In","paragraphs":["para_45","para_46","para_47"]},{"title":"(b) Notwithstanding the grant of Exclusivity in Section 1.2(a):","paragraphs":["para_49"]},{"title":"1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District","paragraphs":["para_51","para_52"]},{"title":"(2) Country, its Affiliates, and its ultimate parent","paragraphs":["para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59"]},{"title":"Country, Its Affiliates and Related Entities, and Persons","paragraphs":["para_61","para_62","para_63"]},{"title":"(3) Country’s Affiliates and Related Entities also have the","paragraphs":["para_65","para_66"]},{"title":"Related Entity purchases, develops or otherwise acquires","paragraphs":["para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72"]},{"title":"(c) Country will not allow any hotels using the Marks other than","paragraphs":["para_74","para_75","para_76"]},{"title":"The Agreement defines “Marks” as (emphasis added):","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The Primary Marks and all other trademarks, service marks, trade","paragraphs":["para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88"]},{"title":"Inn & Suites By Carlson,” but only the one that Is used as part of the","paragraphs":["para_90","para_91"]},{"title":"The Marks, the Confidential and Proprietary System Information and","paragraphs":["para_93","para_94","para_95"]},{"title":"According to T&T, Choice’s other 21 hotel brands entered the “System” when","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Choice became the franchisor. T&T believes that “Marks” includes the WoodSpring","paragraphs":["para_98"]},{"title":"T&T sued Choice, Radisson, and Sunshine. T&T alleged that Choice, by","paragraphs":["para_100"]},{"title":"Agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. T&T alleged","paragraphs":["para_102","para_103"]},{"title":"Agreement and business expectancy.2","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The Agreement lists Minnesota as the forum, adding that disputes are","paragraphs":["para_106","para_107"]},{"title":"T&T first sued in Florida. The district court there found the complaint","paragraphs":["para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115"]},{"title":"After submitting its third amended complaint, the district court granted the motion","paragraphs":["para_117","para_118"]},{"title":"T&T appeals the district court’s dismissal of its third amended complaint, and","paragraphs":["para_120"]},{"title":"This court reviews “de novo a district court’s decision granting a motion to","paragraphs":["para_122","para_123"]},{"title":"Half Int’l, Inc., 79 F.4th 949, 961–62 (8th Cir. 2023). The plaintiff’s complaint","paragraphs":["para_125"]},{"title":"662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A","paragraphs":["para_127","para_128","para_129"]},{"title":"Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While this court must accept the plaintiff’s factual","paragraphs":["para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134"]},{"title":"T&T argues that the district court erred in dismissing the breach-of-contract","paragraphs":["para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142"]},{"title":"1210, 1218 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation and quotation omitted). “We must read the","paragraphs":["para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147"]},{"title":"Sarros, 920 So. 2d 193, 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006). “When the language of a","paragraphs":["para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158"]},{"title":"The plain, unambiguous language of the Agreement prohibits Choice from","paragraphs":["para_160","para_161"]},{"title":"Country System. And, Section 1.2(b)(2) expressly grants Choice the right to license","paragraphs":["para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168"]},{"title":"T&T believes that the Agreement’s definition of “Marks” and “System”—","paragraphs":["para_170","para_171"]},{"title":"Agreement capitalizes “Marks” and “System” to denote that they refer to the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Country brand. The Agreement does not define lowercase “marks” and “system,”","paragraphs":["para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177"]},{"title":"T&T’s broader interpretation of “Marks” and “System” is unreasonable. As","paragraphs":["para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185"]},{"title":"Agreement’s use of “Marks” and “System” is not ambiguous. See BKD Twenty-","paragraphs":["para_187"]},{"title":"T&T’s other arguments require this court to examine extrinsic evidence. This","paragraphs":["para_189"]},{"title":"See Talbott, 59 So. 3d at 245; Dear v. Q Club Hotel, LLC, 933 F.3d 1286, 1293","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(11th Cir. 2019) (stating that this court will not consider “outside evidence or the","paragraphs":["para_192","para_193"]},{"title":"Because the Agreement unambiguously permits the franchisor to grant","paragraphs":["para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198"]},{"title":"T&T argues that Choice and Radisson breached the implied covenant of good","paragraphs":["para_200"]},{"title":"Inc. v. United Parcel Serv. Co., 420 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2005). But, because","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"T&T’s breach-of-contract claims were properly dismissed, so too were its breach-","paragraphs":["para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206"]},{"title":"T&T argues that the district court erred in dismissing its tortious interference","paragraphs":["para_208","para_209","para_210"]},{"title":"Choice did not breach the Agreement by licensing Sunshine to operate a","paragraphs":["para_212"]},{"title":"T&T cannot plausibly allege Sunshine tortious interfered with the Agreement. See","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Al Rushaid Petroleum Inv. Co. v. Siemens Energy Inc., 159 F.4th 887, 894 (11th","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Cir. 2025) (stating that under Florida law, “a prima facie case of tortious interference","paragraphs":["para_216","para_217"]},{"title":"(quotation omitted)); Novell v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14-CV-80672-RLR, 2014","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"WL 7564678, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2014) (“[I]n an action for tortious interference","paragraphs":["para_220"]},{"title":"Int’l S.A. v. Kromka, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (dismissing a","paragraphs":["para_222","para_223","para_224"]},{"title":"Sunshine also did not interfere with T&T’s business expectancies. T&T","paragraphs":["para_226"]},{"title":"WoodSpring hotel interfered with this expectancy. For its claim, T&T must plead a","paragraphs":["para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237"]},{"title":"Ingredients, LLC, 758 F. Appx. 785, 791 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (holding","paragraphs":["para_239","para_240","para_241"]},{"title":"2186-T-33AAS, 2020 WL 7054683, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2020) (“[T]he","paragraphs":["para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247"]},{"title":"The district court set the pleading-amendment deadline for July 23, 2024. On","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"July 11, T&T—responding to the motion to dismiss—asserted: that it was “entitled","paragraphs":["para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259"]},{"title":"T&T argues that, in denying leave to amend further, the district court","paragraphs":["para_261"]},{"title":"Smith v. Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 285 F.3d 750, 752 (8th Cir. 2002) (“A","paragraphs":["para_263"]},{"title":"Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (when a motion to amend is filed, a","paragraphs":["para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269"]},{"title":"See Axline v. 3M Co., 8 F.4th 667, 676 (8th Cir. 2021). The record here is clear:","paragraphs":["para_271"]},{"title":"Belmar, 162 F.4th 899, 907 (8th Cir. 2025) (a “party seeking leave to amend after","paragraphs":["para_273"]},{"title":"16(b)”); Midwest Med. Sols., LLC v. Exactech U.S., Inc., 95 F.4th 604, 607 (8th","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Cir. 2024) (“The movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the case management","paragraphs":["para_276","para_277"]},{"title":"F.4th at 676 (stating that district courts may deny leave to amend “where a plaintiff","paragraphs":["para_279","para_280"]},{"title":"Minn. LR 16.3(b) (requiring a party seeking to modify a scheduling order to","paragraphs":["para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287"]},{"title":"The district court did not err in denying T&T leave to amend its complaint","paragraphs":["para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"For the Eighth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"___________________________","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"No. 25-1618","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"___________________________","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"T&T Management, Inc., a Florida corporation","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Plaintiff - Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Choice Hotels International, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Sunshine Fund Port","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Orange, LLC, Florida limited liability company; Country Inn & Suites by","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Radisson, Inc.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Defendants - Appellees","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Appeal from United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"for the District of Minnesota","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Submitted: February 11, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Filed: June 25, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"BENTON, Circuit Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"T&T Management, Inc., sued Choice Hotels International, Inc.; Country Inn","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"& Suites By Radisson, Inc.; and Sunshine Fund Port Orange, LLC. T&T alleged, in","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"part, breach of its License Agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"-2-","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"and fair dealing, and tortious inference. The district court1 dismissed T&T’s claims,","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"ruling it failed to state a claim. T&T appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"§ 1291, this court affirms.","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"In 2011, T&T was licensed to operate a Country Inn & Suites hotel in Port","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"Orange, Florida. The License Agreement provided T&T a 15-year license that","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"excluded the franchisor and others from operating hotels using the Country “Marks”","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"within a limited geographic area (the “Protected Area”).","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"In 2016, Radisson bought the Country brand. Radisson then sold the Country","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"brand to Choice in 2022. Choice assumed all the original obligations under the","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Agreement to T&T. Choice owned 21 hotel brands, including WoodSpring Suites.","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Before acquiring the Country brand, Choice licensed Sunshine to operate a","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"WoodSpring hotel within the Protected Area—triggering this dispute.","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"The Agreement states (emphasis added):","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"1.2 Reservation of Rights and Area of Protection.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"(a) For the Term Of the Agreement (“Protected Term”) as long","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"as Licensee (i) Opens the Hotel by the dates required in this","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Agreement; and (ii) continuously Operates the Hotel In","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"compliance with this Agreement, Country will not Operate, or","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"license other Persons to Operate, hotels using the Marks within","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"the [Protected Area] . . . .","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"(b) Notwithstanding the grant of Exclusivity in Section 1.2(a):","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":". . . .","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"1The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"of Minnesota.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"-3-","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"(2) Country, its Affiliates, and its ultimate parent","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"corporation, subsidiaries, and all of their respective","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"parents and subsidiaries (“Related Entities”), and Persons","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"licensed by them, shall have the right, anywhere and","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"anytime, to use any trademarks, trade dress, trade names,","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"reservation systems, or franchise systems that are acquired","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"by Country, its Affiliates or Related Entities. In addition,","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"Country, Its Affiliates and Related Entities, and Persons","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"licensed by them, have the right, anywhere and at any","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"time, to Operate, and license other Persons to Operate,","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"hotels using other systems and marks.","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"(3) Country’s Affiliates and Related Entities also have the","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"right, anywhere and at any time, to own or Operate hotels,","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"using the System and the Marks, when (i) that Affiliate or","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"Related Entity purchases, develops or otherwise acquires","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"the hotel, (ii) executes a lease or management agreement,","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"with a guaranteed performance or otherwise, for the hotel;","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"or (iii) acquires an ownership interest in a Person, or its","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"assets, through a purchase, merger, consolidation or","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"otherwise, that owns or operates the hotel.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"(c) Country will not allow any hotels using the Marks other than","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"those referenced in 1.2(b)(3) to open within the Protected Area","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"until after the expiration or termination of the Protected Term. . .","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":".","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"The Agreement defines “Marks” as (emphasis added):","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"The Primary Marks and all other trademarks, service marks, trade","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"names, copyrights, insignia, emblems, slogans, logos, commercial","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"symbols, signs, trade dress (including interior and exterior building","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"designs and specifications and the motif, decor, and color","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"combinations), and all other visual identification, whether in English or","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"any other language by which the System and System Hotels and the","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"related services and products are identified and publicized, including","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"the good will associated with all of them.","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"-4-","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"“Primary Mark” means:","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"“Country Inn By Carlson,” “Country Suites By Carlson” and “Country","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Inn & Suites By Carlson,” but only the one that Is used as part of the","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"Licensed Name.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"“System” means (emphasis added):","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"The Marks, the Confidential and Proprietary System Information and","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"other distinctive elements developed and owned by, or made available","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"by its Affiliates to Country . . . .","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"According to T&T, Choice’s other 21 hotel brands entered the “System” when","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"Choice became the franchisor. T&T believes that “Marks” includes the WoodSpring","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"mark, and thus Choice cannot license it to others within the Protected Area.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"T&T sued Choice, Radisson, and Sunshine. T&T alleged that Choice, by","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"licensing the WoodSpring mark to Sunshine within the Protected Area, breached the","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"Agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. T&T alleged","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"that Radisson knew of this license when it sold the Country brand to Choice, causing","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"the same breaches. T&T alleged that Sunshine tortiously interfered with its","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"Agreement and business expectancy.2","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"The Agreement lists Minnesota as the forum, adding that disputes are","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"“governed by the laws . . . of the state in which the Hotel is located.” Florida law","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"thus governs the state-law claims.","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"T&T first sued in Florida. The district court there found the complaint","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"insufficient. After amendments, the district court ruled that Minnesota was the","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"2This court need not address any issue about the Defend Trade Secrets Act,","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq., because T&T does not raise this issue on appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"-5-","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"proper forum. In Minnesota, T&T again amended its complaint to reflect its sale of","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"the Country-branded hotel. T&T claimed that the defendants’ “improper tortious","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"actions and breach of the parties’ agreement” forced the sale, causing financial loss.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"After submitting its third amended complaint, the district court granted the motion","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court also found sua sponte that","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"leave to amend further was unwarranted, dismissing the action with prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"T&T appeals the district court’s dismissal of its third amended complaint, and","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"denial of leave to amend further.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"This court reviews “de novo a district court’s decision granting a motion to","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"dismiss for failure to state a claim, accepting as true all factual allegations and","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"viewing them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Yang v. Robert","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Half Int’l, Inc., 79 F.4th 949, 961–62 (8th Cir. 2023). The plaintiff’s complaint","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"claim is plausible when ‘the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"alleged.’” Christopherson v. Bushner, 33 F.4th 495, 499 (8th Cir. 2022), quoting","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While this court must accept the plaintiff’s factual","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"allegations as true at this stage, it “need not accept as true a plaintiff’s conclusory","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"allegations or legal conclusions drawn from the facts.” Schulte v. Conopco, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"997 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 2021).","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"T&T argues that the district court erred in dismissing the breach-of-contract","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"claims. It asserts that Choice’s licensing of the WoodSpring mark to Sunshine","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"within the Protected Area, and Radisson’s knowledge of this during the sale,","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"constitutes breach. T&T believes that the Agreement’s definition of “Marks” and","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"“System” unambiguously includes Choice’s other 21 hotel brands.","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"-6-","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"“Under Florida law, a contract is interpreted in accordance with its plain","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"meaning.” MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. QBE Holdings, Inc., 965 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"1210, 1218 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation and quotation omitted). “We must read the","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"contract to give meaning to each and every word it contains, and we avoid treating","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"a word as redundant or mere surplusage ‘if any meaning, reasonable and consistent","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"with other parts, can be given to it.’” Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"& Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1242 (11th Cir. 2009), quoting Roberts v.","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"Sarros, 920 So. 2d 193, 196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006). “When the language of a","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"contract is clear and unambiguous, courts must give effect to the contract as written","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"and cannot engage in interpretation or construction as the plain language is the best","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"evidence of the parties’ intent.” Talbott v. First Bank Fla., FSB, 59 So. 3d 243,","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011). If the contract’s language is ambiguous, however,","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"then “dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is inappropriate.” Tenet Fla., Inc. ex rel. Coral","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"Gables Hosp. v. Glob. Excel Mgmt., Inc., No. 18-60580-CIV, 2018 WL 11457395,","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2018) (citation omitted). “[C]ontractual language is","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"ambiguous only if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.”","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"BKD Twenty-One Mgmt. Co. v. Delsordo, 127 So. 3d 527, 530 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"2012) (emphasis in original).","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"The plain, unambiguous language of the Agreement prohibits Choice from","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"licensing the “Marks” within the Protected Area. The Agreement clearly defines","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"“Marks” as the Country Inn & Suites trademark and the other identifiers for the","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"Country System. And, Section 1.2(b)(2) expressly grants Choice the right to license","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"other entities, anywhere and at any time, to: (1) “use any trademarks, trade dress,","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"trade names, reservation systems, or franchise systems that are acquired by","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"[Choice],” and (2) operate “hotels using other systems and marks.” WoodSpring is","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"an “other mark” that Choice acquired, outside the Country System. The Agreement","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"thus unambiguously authorized Choice to license the WoodSpring mark within the","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"Protected Area.","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"T&T believes that the Agreement’s definition of “Marks” and “System”—","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"along with its failure to define “marks” and “system”—creates ambiguity. The","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"-7-","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Agreement capitalizes “Marks” and “System” to denote that they refer to the","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"Country brand. The Agreement does not define lowercase “marks” and “system,”","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"but it uses them to refer to non-Country identifiers and franchise systems. This court","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"will not treat the Agreement’s use of capitalization as “redundant or mere","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"surplusage.” See Equity Lifestyle, 556 F.3d at 1242. “Marks” and “System” refers","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"only to the Country brand.","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"T&T’s broader interpretation of “Marks” and “System” is unreasonable. As","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"defined in the Agreement, “Primary Mark” refers only to the “Country Inn & Suites”","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"trademark. “Marks” refers to that trademark, along with the rest of the identifiers","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"for the Country franchise (e.g., slogans, building designs, and decorations). “Marks”","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"limits itself, and thus the “System,” to the identifiers that the consuming public","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"associates with the Country brand. Including the WoodSpring mark in the definition","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"of “Marks” is unreasonable. Consumers do not identify Country-branded hotels","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"through the WoodSpring mark. Because T&T’s interpretation is unreasonable, the","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"Agreement’s use of “Marks” and “System” is not ambiguous. See BKD Twenty-","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"One, 127 So. 3d at 530.","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"T&T’s other arguments require this court to examine extrinsic evidence. This","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"court, however, gives effect to the Agreement’s clear and unambiguous language.","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"See Talbott, 59 So. 3d at 245; Dear v. Q Club Hotel, LLC, 933 F.3d 1286, 1293","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"(11th Cir. 2019) (stating that this court will not consider “outside evidence or the","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"complex rules of construction” when the contract’s language is unambiguous","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"(citation omitted)) (applying Florida law).","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"Because the Agreement unambiguously permits the franchisor to grant","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"licenses for non-Country-branded hotels within the Protected Area, the district court","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"correctly dismissed T&T’s breach-of-contract claims against Choice and Radisson.","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"-8-","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"IV.","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"T&T argues that Choice and Radisson breached the implied covenant of good","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"faith and fair dealing—which every Florida contract has. See Centurion Air Cargo,","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"Inc. v. United Parcel Serv. Co., 420 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2005). But, because","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"T&T’s breach-of-contract claims were properly dismissed, so too were its breach-","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing claims. See id. at 1151–52 (stating that a claim for a","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"breach of the implied covenant “cannot be maintained under Florida law in the","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"absence of a breach of an express term of a contract”).","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"V.","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"T&T argues that the district court erred in dismissing its tortious interference","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"claims against Sunshine. It asserts that Sunshine tortiously interfered with its","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"Agreement, and with its business expectancy.","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"Sunshine did not interfere with T&T’s Agreement with Choice. As discussed,","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"Choice did not breach the Agreement by licensing Sunshine to operate a","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"WoodSpring-branded hotel within the Protected Area. Because there was no breach,","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"T&T cannot plausibly allege Sunshine tortious interfered with the Agreement. See","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"Al Rushaid Petroleum Inv. Co. v. Siemens Energy Inc., 159 F.4th 887, 894 (11th","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"Cir. 2025) (stating that under Florida law, “a prima facie case of tortious interference","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"requires,” as an element, “an intentional and unjustified interference with the","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"business relationship or procurement of the contract’s breach by the defendant”","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"(quotation omitted)); Novell v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14-CV-80672-RLR, 2014","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"WL 7564678, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2014) (“[I]n an action for tortious interference","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"with a contract, a plaintiff must demonstrate there was a breach of contract.”); Treco","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"Int’l S.A. v. Kromka, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (dismissing a","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"tortious-interference-with-contract claim where the plaintiffs did not allege actual","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"procurement of the contract’s breach).","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"-9-","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"Sunshine also did not interfere with T&T’s business expectancies. T&T","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"claims its expectancies are future business with “loyal customers.” It argues that the","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"WoodSpring hotel interfered with this expectancy. For its claim, T&T must plead a","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"business relationship with identifiable customers that “afford[s] existing or","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"prospective legal rights to the parties and embod[ies] ‘an actual and identifiable","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"understanding’ that the parties will do business together.” Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc.","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"v. Anthem, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1292, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2017), quoting Ethan Allen,","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812, 815 (Fla. 1994). T&T, however,","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"does not allege how—absent the WoodSpring hotel’s existence—these customers","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"would provide it future business. T&T’s business-expectancy claim thus is purely","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"speculative. See Ethan Allen, 647 So. 2d at 815 (“The mere hope that some of its","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"past customers may choose to buy again cannot be the basis for a tortious","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"interference claim.”); B & D Nutritional Ingredients, Inc. v. Unique Bio","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"Ingredients, LLC, 758 F. Appx. 785, 791 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (holding","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"“speculation regarding future sales to past customers” is not enough for a tortious-","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"interference-with-a-business-relationship claim), quoting Ethan Allen, 647 So. 2d","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"at 814–15; McKesson Corp. v. Benzer Pharmacy Holding LLC, No. 8:20-CV-","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"2186-T-33AAS, 2020 WL 7054683, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2020) (“[T]he","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"requirements to state a cause of action for tortious interference with a business","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"expectancy are the same as one for tortious interference with a business","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"relationship.”).","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"The district court correctly dismissed T&T’s tortious interference claims.","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"VI.","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"The district court set the pleading-amendment deadline for July 23, 2024. On","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"July 11, T&T—responding to the motion to dismiss—asserted: that it was “entitled","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"to amend its complaint” to the extent the district court found the factual allegations","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"for certain claims were insufficient; and that amendment would not be futile. The","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"day of the deadline, T&T moved for a third amended complaint to “merely remove","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"its request for injunctive relief given” its sale of the Country-branded hotel. The","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"-10-","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"district court granted this motion to amend. Later, dismissing the third amended","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"complaint, the district court sua sponte—reacting to T&T’s previous, general catch-","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"all requests to amend—peremptorily stated it “does not find that leave to amend is","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"warranted in this case as the complaint has been amended three times.” T&T never","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"moved for a fourth amended complaint before the district court.","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"T&T argues that, in denying leave to amend further, the district court","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"improperly relied on the number of times it previously amended the complaint. See","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"Smith v. Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 285 F.3d 750, 752 (8th Cir. 2002) (“A","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"district court abuses its discretion if it applies the incorrect law.”); Popoalii v. Corr.","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (when a motion to amend is filed, a","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"court abuses its discretion denying it without finding “undue delay, bad faith,","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the amendment”). Regardless of","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"whether the district court relied on the number of previous amendments, this court","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"may affirm the denial of leave to amend “on any ground supported by the record.”","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"See Axline v. 3M Co., 8 F.4th 667, 676 (8th Cir. 2021). The record here is clear:","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"T&T did not act diligently in seeking a fourth amended complaint. See Cheeks v.","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"Belmar, 162 F.4th 899, 907 (8th Cir. 2025) (a “party seeking leave to amend after","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"the deadline must first show good cause for the untimely amendment under Rule","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"16(b)”); Midwest Med. Sols., LLC v. Exactech U.S., Inc., 95 F.4th 604, 607 (8th","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"Cir. 2024) (“The movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the case management","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"order’s requirements is the ‘primary measure’ of good cause.”). T&T’s failure to","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"comply with many procedural rules establishes a lack of diligence. See Axline, 8","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"F.4th at 676 (stating that district courts may deny leave to amend “where a plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"has not followed applicable procedural rules”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”); D.","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"Minn. LR 16.3(b) (requiring a party seeking to modify a scheduling order to","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"“establish good cause for the proposed modification”); D. Minn. LR 7.1(b) (stating","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"motions to amend require the movant to file and serve, e.g.: a motion; a notice of","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"hearing; a memorandum of law; and a proposed order); D. Minn. LR 15.1(b) (“Any","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"-11-","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"motion to amend a pleading must be accompanied by: (1) a copy of the proposed","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"amended pleading, and (2) a version of the proposed amended pleading . . . .”).","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"The district court did not err in denying T&T leave to amend its complaint","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"further.","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"* * * * * * *","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"The judgment is affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_292"}],"word_count":2925,"cites":["556 U.S.\n662","550 U.S. 544","79 F.4th 949","33 F.4th 495","997 F.3d 823","965 F.3d\n1210","556 F.3d 1232","933 F.3d 1286","420 F.3d 1146","159 F.4th 887","285 F.3d 750","512 F.3d 488","8 F.4th 667","162 F.4th 899","95 F.4th 604"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"99febfa9801576523d0a368654377b7be6e49b66ae7c38f2922bda02019086f1","source_url":"https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/06/251618P.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-09-28T06:11:45.316+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25","verification":{"stored_sha256":"99febfa9801576523d0a368654377b7be6e49b66ae7c38f2922bda02019086f1","recomputed_sha256":"99febfa9801576523d0a368654377b7be6e49b66ae7c38f2922bda02019086f1","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-14T12:17:57.105Z"}},"hash":"sha256:1a64627316560958b32ca4cca0322771abd6570e54f4819fbac7d67bf717b8be","version":"legal-2026-10-14","expires":"2026-10-15T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-14+legal-2026-10-14+2026-10-14T08:26:07","content_hash":"sha256:1a64627316560958b32ca4cca0322771abd6570e54f4819fbac7d67bf717b8be","revalidate_after":"2026-10-14T13:17:57.280Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca8-25-1618-2026-06-25","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-143b9fefe4a79af84f0b63037940ad77","response_hash":"sha256:1a64627316560958b32ca4cca0322771abd6570e54f4819fbac7d67bf717b8be"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T05:24:28.758Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca8-25-1618-2026-06-25&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":15319}}