IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SOUTHPORT TELEDATA, INC., : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, :

 :

v. :

 :

NOVA CONTACT CENTER :

PLATFORMS, INC., et al., :

Defendants. : NO. 05-0030

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PRATTER, J. NOVEMBER 6, 2006

Plaintiff Southport Teledata Systems, Inc. (“Southport”) alleged that Defendants Nova

Contact Center Platforms, Inc. and Nova CTI (collectively, “Nova”) breached a telemarketing

contract by failing to pay for the services provided by Southport. Following a bench trial, the

Court entered judgment in favor of Southport. Nova then filed a Motion for a New Trial

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2) or, in the alternative, a Motion to Amend

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b). In

response, Southport filed a Motion to Strike Nova’s Motion.

The breach of contract action centered on the nature of Southport’s performance

obligations under the contract among the parties. The Court found that Southport demonstrated

by a preponderance of the evidence that Southport properly performed its obligations under the

Service Agreement and the addenda (Conclusion of Law ¶ 25), and, therefore, Nova was required

to pay Southport as provided by the agreement. Nova takes issue with the Court’s Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law, arguing that the Court failed to give sufficient weight to testimony

and evidence favoring Nova, while erroneously crediting testimony and evidence favoring

Case 2:05-cv-00030-GEKP Document 42 Filed 11/06/06 Page 1 of 3
 The Court recognizes that, as noted by the Supreme Court, “if the trial court bases its

1

findings upon a mistaken impression of applicable legal principles, the reviewing court is not

bound by the clearly erroneous standard.” Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.,

456 U.S. 844, 855 n.15 (1982) (citing United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 374 U.S. 174,

194 n.9 (1963)). In this instance, however, Nova does not dispute the Court’s application of

legal principles. Nova’s allegations of “clearly erroneous conclusions of law” stem from its

disagreement with the Court’s factual findings, not its application of the relevant law.

2

Southport.

Rule 52 states that “[f]indings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence,

shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of

the trial court to judge . . . the credibility of the witnesses.” FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a). In essence,

Nova disagrees with the Court’s assessment of the witnesses’ testimony and of the

interrelationship of the operative documents as well as the Court’s interpretation of the

contractual agreements in question. While making its dissatisfaction obvious, Nova fails to point

to any evidence making the Court’s factual findings “clearly erroneous.” Determining the 1

weight and credibility of the evidence is the special province of the trier of fact, and, “unless an

appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, it

must accept the trial court’s findings.” Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456

U.S. 844, 855, 856 (1982) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court will not

disturb its judgment here merely because, not surprisingly, Nova would have weighed the

evidence differently.

For the foregoing reasons, Nova’s Motion for New Trial and Motion to Amend Findings

of Fact and Conclusions of Law are denied. An appropriate Order consistent with this

Memorandum follows.

Case 2:05-cv-00030-GEKP Document 42 Filed 11/06/06 Page 2 of 3
 Twelve thousand two hundred seventeen dollars and fifty-two cents ($12,217.52). 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SOUTHPORT TELEDATA, INC., : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, :

 :

v. :

 :

NOVA CONTACT CENTER :

PLATFORMS, INC., et al., :

Defendants. : NO. 05-0030

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6 day of November 2006, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion th

for New Trial or to Amend Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Docket No. 39) and

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for New Trial (Docket No. 41), it is hereby

ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion for New Trial is DENIED;

2. Defendants’ Motion to Amend Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is

DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is MOOT; and

4. Defendants shall pay pre-judgment interest as calculated by Plaintiff.2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this case statistically.

BY THE COURT:

 S/Gene E.K. Pratter 

 GENE E.K. PRATTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00030-GEKP Document 42 Filed 11/06/06 Page 3 of 3