Twin County Grocers, Inc.; Twinco Services, Inc. v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-1116
___________
TWIN COUNTY GROCERS, INC.;
TWINCO SERVICES, INC.,
Appellants
v.
FOOD CIRCUS SUPERMARKETS, INC.; JOSEPH AZZOLINA, SR.; LOUIS
SCADUTO; GRACE SCADUTO; FOOD KING INC; V&V INC; RONALD
GINSBERG; MAYFOODS, INC; VICTOR LARACCA, L.J.V., Inc; WILLIAM
MICHAS; FRANCIS MARKETS, LTD; NEPTUNE CITY LIQUORS, Inc; DONALD P.
NORKUS; GERARD K. NORKUS; NORKUS ENTERPRISES, INC; FRANELEN INC;
HELEN PACZKOWSKI; STANLEY PACZKOWSKI; HARP MARKETING CORP;
JACK PYTLUK; MARTIN PYTLUK; RUTH PYTLUK; SIDNEY CHARLES
MARKETS, INC.; MICHAEL ZIMMERMAN; SIDNEY ZIMMERMAN; CHARLES
H. ZIMMERMAN; E. DICKERSON & SON, Inc; C. RONALD DICKERSON;
FOODTOWN; VINCENT LARACCA,
DIGIORGIO CORPORATION,
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civil No. 99-cv-05135)
District Judge: The Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr.
_____
ARGUED
October 29, 2002

-- 1 of 5 --

* Honorable Paul R. Michel, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
2
BEFORE: NYGAARD, GREENBERG, and MICHEL,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed : November 18, 2002 )
Guy V. Amoresano, Esq. (Argued)
Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione
One Riverfront Plaza
Newark, NJ 07102-5497
Counsel for Appellants
Mark H. Moore, Esq. (Argued)
Gregory E. Galterio, Esq.
Jaffe & Asher
600 Third Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Counsel for Appellee
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellants Twin County Grocers, Inc. and Twinco Services, Inc. appeal from
an order of the District Court which granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee
DiGiorgio Corp., the sole remaining defendant. Appellants allege as error the issues listed
in paragraph I, taken from its brief. Because we conclude that the District Court did not err,
we will affirm.
I.
The allegations of error asserted by Appellants are as follows:

-- 2 of 5 --

3
1. The District Court erred by holding that the restrictive
covenants were unenforceable against DiGiorgio.
2. The District Court erred by not ordering DiGiorgio to
disgorge profits.
3. The District Court erred by holding that Twin was not injured
by DiGiorgio’s actions.
4. The District Court erred by holding that DiGiorgio had no
duty to negotiate with Twin in good faith, or, alternatively, that
that duty had not been breached.
5. The District Court erred by holding that DiGiorgio was not
unjustly enriched.
II.
The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties and
the court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The court has heard oral
argument on the issues presented to us in this appeal. The reasons why we write an opinion
of the court are threefold: to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform the
attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. None of these reasons are presented
here. We use a not-precedential opinion in cases such as this, in which a precedential
opinion is rendered unnecessary because the opinion has no institutional or precedential
value. See United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating
Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.3. Under the usual circumstances when we affirm by not-precedential
opinion and judgment, we briefly set forth the reasons supporting the court’s decision. In

-- 3 of 5 --

4
this case, however, we have concluded that neither a full memorandum explanation nor a
precedential opinion is indicated because of the very extensive and thorough opinion filed
by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. of the District Court. Judge Brown’s opinion adequately
explains and fully supports its order and refutes the Appellants’ allegations of error.
Hence, we believe it wholly unnecessary to further opine, or offer additional explanations
and reasons to those given by the District Court, why we will affirm. It is a sufficient
explanation to say that, essentially for the reasons given by the District Court in its opinion
dated the 11th day of December, 2001, we will affirm.
III.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District
Court.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge

-- 4 of 5 --

-- 5 of 5 --