August 21, 2025|Publications
August 21, 2025 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | Published Opinion
Executive Summary
In a published opinion, Judge Smith of the Eighth Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of Smash My Trash, LLC and its franchisor, Smash Franchise Partners, LLC, against Allied Services, LLC, doing business as Republic Services of Kansas City. Republic, a national waste hauler, alleged that Smash My Trash’s mobile compaction services damaged Republic’s containers and interfered with its customer contracts. The court struck Republic’s jury demand after finding that it had no admissible evidence of monetary damages and later rejected its claims for trespass to chattels and unjust enrichment. Republic sought to rely on container rental values, contractual penalties, and generalized claims of equipment harm, but the court determined those figures were speculative, unsupported, and barred under Missouri law.
Relevant Background
Republic operates as one of the largest waste haulers in the United States, with over 140 business units nationwide. In Kansas City, Republic owns roughly 1,500 open-top waste containers that it leases to commercial customers. These containers are delivered to customer sites, filled with waste, and hauled away on a scheduled or as-needed basis. Smash My Trash operates in the Kansas City market as part of a national franchise system. Its franchisees contract directly with businesses to compact waste in on-site containers using a proprietary “smash truck.” Customers that already used Republic’s hauling services sometimes hired Smash My Trash to perform these compaction services in the same Republic-owned containers.
Republic filed suit in the Western District of Missouri against the Kansas City franchisee and its franchisor, alleging trespass to chattels, conversion, tortious interference with customer contracts, false advertising, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and related claims. Republic argued that Smash My Trash’s compaction process damaged its containers, interfered with its relationships, and diminished the value of its assets. Early in the litigation, Republic sought a temporary restraining order, contending that it would suffer irreparable harm from ongoing container damage. The district court denied the motion, holding that any such harms could be addressed through monetary damages if adequately proven.
As discovery progressed, Republic faced a critical problem. Its corporate records could not establish when or where damage occurred to its containers, or whether Smash My Trash’s services were the cause. Republic admitted that it had never computed damages for alleged harm to containers in the Kansas City market and lacked the data to do so. When pressed, Republic narrowed its claims, disavowed compensatory damages, and attempted to proceed based on nominal damages, penalties, and equitable relief. It proposed that each compaction was worth a $600 rental fee or a $250 contractual penalty. The district court found these figures grossly speculative, unsupported by expert testimony, and inapplicable to a third party such as Smash My Trash.
After striking Republic’s jury demand, the district court conducted a bench trial. The court concluded that Republic’s failure to prove actual damages was fatal to its claims. Missouri law requires damages to be determinable and measurable, not presumed or speculative. Because Republic provided no competent evidence that its containers were damaged, warranties voided, or revenues lost, its claims for trespass to chattels, interference, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment all failed. The court also found that Republic had not directly conferred any benefit on Smash My Trash, as the relationship was structured through customer contracts, and therefore unjust enrichment could not apply.
Decision
The Eighth Circuit affirmed across the board. The court began by emphasizing Republic’s recordkeeping failures, which prevented it from linking alleged damage to particular containers or particular compaction events. Republic conceded in discovery that it had no system capable of tracking when damage occurred, where containers had been placed, or what had caused any wear. Its own Rule 30(b)(6) witness admitted that Republic had never calculated damages.
The evidentiary problems did not stop there. Republic offered testimony from two drivers claiming they had observed damage caused by Smash My Trash. Yet Republic failed to document those incidents and refused under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 to make the containers available for inspection. Without inspection or contemporaneous documentation, the testimony was given little weight. The appellate court agreed with the district court that Republic had provided no admissible evidence of actual impairment to its containers, no proof of voided warranties, and no quantifiable evidence of lost time or added expense.
Republic also argued that damages could be inferred from container rental values or penalties embedded in its customer contracts. The court rejected this approach, noting that the $600 rental rate was merely a gross figure unsupported by expert testimony, while the $250 penalty clause could not be enforced against a third party such as Smash My Trash. The court stressed that Missouri law does not permit speculative or theoretical damages, and nominal damages are unavailable where pecuniary loss is an essential element of the claim. Without provable damages, Republic’s tort theories collapsed.
The court likewise upheld the dismissal of unjust enrichment, explaining that Republic never directly conferred a benefit on Smash My Trash. Any benefit flowed through Republic’s customers, who independently contracted with the franchisee. Express contracts governed both sets of relationships, foreclosing the implied contract theory Republic attempted to assert.
Looking Forward
For franchisors and system operators, this case highlights the critical importance of detailed recordkeeping in protecting legal claims. Republic’s inability to produce container-level records, service histories, or expense data left it unable to prove actual damages. Courts will not assume harm based on speculation, and the failure to substantiate damages can not only prevent recovery but also eliminate the right to a jury trial.
The lesson for franchisors is clear: maintaining comprehensive records of asset condition, customer activity, and financial performance is essential in enforcing agreements, defending brand integrity, and sustaining claims in court. Whether in disputes with franchisees, vendors, or competitors, documented damages are the difference between a viable cause of action and a dismissed case. Republic’s experience demonstrates how the absence of reliable data can undercut even a large, sophisticated company and leave it without a remedy.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
