A federal judge from the Middle District of North Carolina has affirmed a magistrate judge’s finding that any efforts by Duke University to attract the son of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to play for its golf team should not be construed as an enforceable contract.
“The statement does not promise unconditional and unlimited opportunities to be on the golf team,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Osteen Jr.
Last summer, a magistrate judge granted Duke University’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, effectively dismissing the breach of contract claim brought by Andrew Giuliani.
Giuliani had argued that school officials, who have since left the school, had made certain promises to him that went unfulfilled, such as lifetime access to Duke’s state-of-the-art training facilities and “the opportunity to compete with his teammates to earn spots in the most competitive golf tournaments against the most competitive players in the NCAA,” if he enrolled at the university.
Duke claimed in response to the lawsuit that Giuliani “squandered [the opportunity] through his own conduct.” The school claimed he allegedly “flipped a putter, broke a driver, gunned his car engine in a golf course parking lot, and threw an apple in the face of one of his teammates.” This behavior led to his suspension.
Giuliani and his parents ultimately hired a lawyer and sued, drawing the ire of Duke’s lawyers. “Indeed, through his lawyer, Giuliani demanded not only reinstatement to the team, but also guaranteed playing time,” Duke’s lawyers claimed in their answer. “He also demanded that any future coaching decisions about him be preapproved by ‘a designee within the general counsel’s office.’”
In reviewing Duke’s motion, the court revisited the plaintiff’s argument that “a valid contract was created when he accepted Duke’s offer to play varsity golf.” Giuliani’s argument rested primarily on terms in the student-policy manuals. The magistrate judge was unmoved, writing that “Non-binding student policy manuals are not binding contracts. Love v. Duke Univ., 776 F.Supp. 1070, 1075 (M.D.N.C.1991), aff’d, 959 F.2d 231 (4th 1992).”
Because the plaintiff “has failed to satisfy the first element of a breach of contract claim – existence of a valid contract — [T]he defendants are entitled to a judgment on the pleadings.”
The district judge also affirmed the magistrate judge’s other rulings concerning whether the defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; there was tortious interference with a contract; promissory estoppels; and declaratory judgment.
Giuliani v. Duke University and Orrin Daniel Vincent III; M.D. N. C.; 1:08CV502; 3/30/2009.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Robert C. Ekstrand, Ekstrand & Ekstrand, LLP, Durham, NC. (for defendants) James Donald Cowan, Jr., Dixie Thomas Wells, Ellis & Winters, LLP, Greensboro, NC, James P. Cooney, III, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, NC.
For a hard copy of the latest opinion, visit: http://www.northwesteducationlaw.com/uploads/file/Giuliani_v_DukeU%5B1%5D.pdf
