A-24-143, WRK, L.L.C. (Appellant) v. Zach Wiegert
Lancaster County, District Court, Judge Andrew R. Jacobson
Attorney for Appellant: Daniel J. Epstein (Goosmann Law Firm, PLC)
Attorneys for Appellee: Heather Voegele and Andreanna C. Smith (Voegele Anson Law, LLC)
Civil Action: Summary Judgment; Breach of Contract, Covenant Not to Compete
Action Taken by Trial Court: WRK is a real estate development and investment firm, and Wiegert is a commercial and residential real estate developer. After developing multiple projects together, they ceased doing business together. The parties entered into a West Haymarket Agreement and Settlement Agreement, which contained a non-compete provision prohibiting Wiegert from competing against WRK in certain areas for a specified period of time. In 2018, WRK issued a “Special Notice” to Wiegert alleging that he or an affiliated entity were failing to comply with the covenant not to compete. WRK subsequently filed a breach of contract action against Wiegert, seeking $3.5 million in liquidated damages for Wiegert’s alleged breach of the covenant not to compete. Wiegert filed a counterclaim for tortious interference with business relationships and prospective business relationships. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment.
The district court found that a fact finder would have to speculate to conclude that Wiegert breached the non-compete three days after receiving the “Special Notice,” and therefore, WRK failed to show the existence of a material issue of fact which would prevent judgment for Wiegert as a matter of law. The court sustained Wiegert’s motion for summary judgment and overruled WRK’s motion for summary judgment. The district court subsequently dismissed Wiegert’s counterclaim without prejudice.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: WRK assigns, restated, that the district court erred: (1) in determining that there was no issue of material fact and granting Wiegert’s summary judgment given the deposition testimony of certain witnesses in which Wiegert admitted to working on the disputed project after receiving the “Special Notice”; (2) in granting Wiegert summary judgment given the “judicial admissions” or “admissions against interest” about his membership in the disputed project that his counsel made during a witness’ deposition; (3) by incorrectly applying the “Special Notice provisions” and ignoring other provisions in the parties’ agreement; and (4) in overruling the objections and admitting into evidence Wiegert’s affidavit.