FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T AUGUST 25, 2010 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 15 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 81 12 8- CV-DTKH ADVANCED BODYCARE SOLUT IONS, LLC,
Pl ai nt iff -Co un te rDefen da nt -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us THIONE INTE RNATIONAL, INC., Defen da nt -Co un te rCl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee, NATURECITY, LLC, CARL PRADELLI, ThirdPart y -Co un te rDefen da nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st25 , 20 10 )Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d EBEL, Cir cu itJu dg es . * TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e: Thi s ca se ari se s o utof aco nt ractth atrequi reda co m pa ny to m ak e m in im

um pu rch as es of p ro du ct s i n e xc hang e fo r anex cl us iv e li cen se to m ark etan d di st rib ut e th em . Con te nd in g t ha t p ro du ct s i t i ni ti al ly recei ve d wer e d efec ti ve , th e pu rch as er d idno t m ak e th e ad di ti on al m in im um pu rch as es th e co nt ractrequi red
. Afte r at te m

pt s t o n eg ot ia te a so lu ti on to th e p art ie s’ di ffer en ces fai le d, t he pu rch as er b ro ug htsu itag ai ns t t he supp li er fo r br each of c on tra ctan d fo r br each of
anim pl ie d warran ty. The s up pl ie r co un te rcl ai m ed , see ki ng th e p ro fit s i t wo ul d ha ve earn edha d t he pu rch as er s at is fie d i ts ob li ga ti on s u nd er the co nt ract . A j ury fo un d fo r th e supp li er o n t he pu rch as er’s cl ai m s an d a ward edit$2 .5 m il li onon it s
co un te rcl ai m . The di stric t co urt en te redjud gm en t fo r th e supp li er fo r $2 .5 m il li on an d de ni edth e p ur ch as er’s p os t-ju dg m en t m ot io ns forjud gm en t as a m at te r of law an d, al te rn at iv el y , a ne w tri al . The p ur ch as er n ow ap pe al s. We affirm . I. A.

Honora ble David M. Ebe l, United States Circuit J udg e for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by * designation. 2On Ap ril 1, 2 00 4, Ad va nc edBo dy Care So lu ti on s, LLC (“ Adv an ced ”) an d

Thi on e In te rn at io na l, In c. (“ Thi on e”) e nt eredin to a Supp ly andLice ns in g Agr eem en t (t he “ Lice ns in g Ag reem en t” or “ Agr eem en t” ). Thi s Ag reem en t requi redAdv an cedto m ak e m in im um pu rch as es of “ Thi on e Ant io xi da nt Co m pl ex ” (the “ Diet ary Supp le m en t” ), whi ch reduc es free rad ic al da m ag e to th e bo dy, andThi on e’s “ Free Rad ic al Mo ni to r Tes t Ki t” (th e “ TestKit ”), wh ic h i s a te stki t fo r at -h om e u se to m on it orth e b od y ’s free ra di cal s. The Tes t Ki ts co ul d 1 be pu rch as edas awho le or b y th ei r th ree c om

po ne nt s, o ne of wh ic h was free rad ic al m on it oram

po ul es . In e xc ha ng e, Adv an cedrece iv ed , for th e dur at io n o f 2
Advanc ed could c hoose the ratio in which it purchased the Dietar y Supplements and 1 Test Kits, so long a s it spent a cer tain amount on the produc ts eac h quarte r for the duration of the L icensingAgree ment. The amounts that Advance d was re quired to spend a re shown in the c hart below. 1 Quar

ter 2 Quar

ter 3 Quar

ter 4 Quar

ter st n d rd t h J an. 1 –Mar. 31 April 1 –J une 30 J uly 1 –Sept 30 Oct 1 –Dec . 31 st st st t h st t h st st 2004 XX XX XX $201,450.00 2005 $268,600.00 $335,750.00 $537,200.00 $537,200.00 2006 $537,200.00 $537,200.00 $537,200.00 $537,200.00 2007 $537,200.00 $550,000.00 $550,000.00 $550,000.00 2008 $550,000.00 $550,000.00 $555,000.00 $555,000.00 2009 $555,000.00 XX XX XX Ampoules are small gla ss tubes containinga cle ar liquid rea g ent, which tests for the 2 prese nce of

fre e ra dicals in a urine sample. 3th e Agr eem en t, “ th e li cen se an d autho rit y ” “ to adve rti se , pro m ot e, m ark et , sel l an d

ot he rwis e d is tri bu te ” th e Die ta ry Supp le m en t an d t he TestKiton anex cl us iv e ba si s. Th e Lic en si ng Agre em en t was to rem ai n i n e ffec t fo r a m in im um of f iv e y ears : Ap ril 1, 2 00 4 t o M arch 31 , 20 09
. 3 The Lice ns in g Ag reem en t p ro vi de d t ha t ei th er p art y co ul d t erm in at e th e Agr eem en t upo n t hi rty (30 ) da y s wri tt enno ti ce t he reo f to th e o th er pa rty up on th e b reac h b y th e o th er p art y

of a ny of it s m at eri al rep res en ta ti on s, warr an ti es , cov en an ts , or a gr eem en ts co nt ai ne d i n th is Agre em en t. Up on th e ex pi rat io n o f su ch no ti ce p eri od , th is Agr eem en t s ha ll term in at e wit ho utth e n eedfor furth er ac ti on by ei th er p art y ; p ro vi de d, h owe ve r, th atif t he bre ach up on whi ch su ch no ti ce o f te rm in at io n i s b as edsh al l h av e b een ful ly curedto th e reas on ab le sat is fact io n o f th e te rm in at in g p arty withi n s uc h 3 0- da y pe rio d, t he n s uc h n ot ic e o f te rm in at io n s ha ll be de em edres ci nd ed , an d t hi s Ag reem en t s ha ll be de em edrei ns ta te d andinful l fo rce a nd effe ct . Suc h ri gh t o f te rm in at io n s ha ll be in ad di ti on to su ch ot he r rig ht s an d re m ed ie s as th e te rm in at in g p arty m ay ha ve un de r ap pl ic ab le law. 4 Thi on e co ul d a ls o t erm in at e th e Agr eem en t ea rly onad di ti on al gro un ds , in cl ud in g if Ad va nc edfai le d t o m ak e an y of t he m in im

um pu rch as es th e co nt ractrequi red
. Inth atev en t, as pro vi de d i n P arag rap h 6 B, th e Agr eem en t an d t he ex cl us iv e
The Agree ment provided that it would automatica lly extend for additional one- year 3 periods unless either

party provided 60 da

y s advanc e notice of

termination. Although the re a

re no w arr anty

claims on appe al, we notethat the L icensingAgree ment 4 war rante d that the Test Kits and Die tary Supplements provided under the Agree ment would be fre e of de fec ts for 180 days. I f they wer e not, Advanc ed could r eturn them, a nd Thione would have the option of replac ing the units or refundingthe purc hase price f or the re turned units. 4li cen se gra nt edto Adv an cedwou ld ,

as of s uc h d at e, atth e so le an d abs ol ut e d is cret io n o f Thi on e: (1) be te rm in at ed ; (2 ) be re-n eg ot ia te d wi th res pe ctto pri ce, dur at io n o r si m il ar as pe ct ; o r (3 ) be ch an ge d fr om an“ ex cl us iv e” l ic en se to a “ no n- ex cl us iv e” l ic en se for th e b al an ce o f th e te rm

of thi s Ag reem en t

. . . . Notwit hs ta nd in g t he for eg oi ng , pri orto ex erci si ng any of t he afo re-m en ti on edrig ht s, Th io ne sh al l p ro vi de [Adv an ced ] with thi rty (3 0) day s p rio r writ te n n ot ic e to rem edy an y pu rch as e d efi ci en cy

an d if [ Adv an ced ] cures su chm in im um do ll ar o rd er s ho rtf

al l wi th in su ch 30 da y s p eri od , th e ex cl us iv e li cen se sh al l re m ai n i nt act . Alt ho ug h Ad va nc edwas n otrequi redto m eeta m in im um pu rch as e am ou nt
un ti l t he fou rth qu art er o f 20 04 , itha d t o p la ce i ts in it ia l o rd er wi th in th irt y da y s o f th e ex ecu ti on of t he Agre em en t. Fin al ly, th e Agr eem en t wo ul d b e g ov ern edby 5 Geo rg ialaw. On M ay 26 , 20 04 , Adv an cedpl acedanord er fo r 25 ,00 0 a m po ul es , for whi chitpa id$4 1,2 50 . It rec ei ve d abo ut20 ,00 0 a m po ul es on Sep te m

be r 1. Itwas imm ed ia te ly app aren t tha t 2 00 –3 00 of t he 20 ,00 0 wer e b ro ke n, an d abo ut1,0 00 were p in k, i nd ic at in g t ha t t he y were d efec ti ve . The fo ll owi ng da y , Dr. Step he n 6 Perry , Adv an ced ’s li ai so n wi th Thi on e, se ntanem ai l t o Dr. M arkHers h, t he CEO
an d c hi ef s ci en ti stof Th io ne , st at in g t ha t, “ Carl [Prad el li , Adv an ced ’s m an ag in g
The Agree ment require d that the initial order be paid in full with the purcha se orde r; for 5 subsequent orde rs, only

50% had to be paid with the purc hase or der. As stated in note 2, supra , the ampoules a re suppose d to contain a c lear liquid reag ent. 6 I f the ampoules turn pink before beingused by the customer, the y

are defe ctive. 5m em

be r,] rece iv edso m e v ia ls th atare p in k,” an d i nq ui rin g, “ Do we h av e a pr oduc ti on is su e? ” Adv an cedrece iv edth e o ut st an di ng 5,0 00 (of th e 2 5,0 00 )
am po ul es on Nov em

be r 9. Atth e en d o f 20 04 , Adv an cedwas $ 14 4,9 00 sh ort o n it s m in im um pu rch as e o bl ig at io n o f $2 01 ,45 0 fo r th e qua rte r. 7 On J an ua ry

7, 2 00 5, Ad vanc edm ad e a p aym en t o f $7 2,4 50 to Thi on e—h al f of th e b al an ce due on th e p rev io us qu art er’s m in im um pa ym en t. Adva nc eddi d n ot sp eci fy whatitso ug htto pu rch as e; rathe r, anacco m pa nyin g e m ai l fr om

Prad el li to Hers h s ta te d t ha t t he am ou ntof t he wire was “ fo r $7 2,4 50 rep res en ti ng a 50 % de po si t o n a$1 44 ,90 0 p ur ch as e o rd er. W e p rev io us ly pur ch as ed$5 6,5 50 worth o f pr oduc t, the cu rren t [p ur ch as e o rd er] get s u s t o t he 20 04 th res ho ldof $ 20 1,4 50 . I ho pe to ge t s pe ci fic s o n t he nu m be r of am po ul es ve rs us [th e Die ta ry Supp le m en t] in th e n ex t 1 0– 14 day s.” As o f Mar ch 20 05 , Thi on e h adno t yet id en ti fie d t he so ur ce o f th e p ro bl em wit h t he fir stsh ip m en t o f 20 ,00 0 a m po ul es , andAdv an cedha d p la cedno
subs eque ntord ers . On Ma rch 18 , Prad el li sen t Her sh a “ su m m ary rep ort o f 8

The L icense Agree ment provided that “ [a] ll orders for Products rec eived prior to 7 Dec ember

31, 2004 shall be applied to the 4 Quar ter 2004 minimums.” In addition to the t h $41,250 spent on the ampoules, Adva nced ha d paid $15,300 for the Dietar y Supplement. Advanc ed neither

paid the re maining ba lance on the minimum purchase or der f or the 8 fourth quar

ter of 2004 nor

specifie d what produc ts it sought to rec eive with the $72,450 de posit. As a re sult, Thione did not shi p Advanc ed any products for

the $72,450. 6[Advanc ed ’s] m ark et in g e ffo rts for ” th e Tes t Ki t. Fo ll owi ng fiv e p ag es on th at

subjec t was a se ct io n o f th e le tt er en ti tl ed“ The Lin ge rin g B la ckClo ud .” Thi s
se ct io n a ss ert edan d s tre ss edth atAdv an ced ’s “bi gg es t co nc ern ” was th e d efec ti ve
am po ul es an d t ha t i t co ul d n otlau nc h a ny add it io na l m ark et in g i ni ti at iv es un ti l
sa ti sf ie d t ha t t he pro bl em

was p erm an en tl y

so lv ed . Fol lo win g t he rece ip t o f th is le tt er, Hers h s en t an em ai l t o P rad el li on Marc h 2 8. Inth e em ai l, Hers h ackno wled ge d t ha t 1 ,44 0 o f th e in it ia l 2 0,0 00 sh ip pe d wer e d efec ti ve an d t ol d Prad el li th atth ey

wou ldbe rep la ced . After P rad el li res po nd edth at4,0 00
am po ul es ha d turne d p in k, Her sh ask edPrad el li to return t he se am po ul es an d of fere d t o s en d re pl acements imm ed ia te ly. He als o a ss ur edPrad el li th atth e pr ob le m ha d b een id en ti fie d a ndall of the am po ul es ot he r th anth os e rec ei ve d i n th e in it ia l s hi pm en t o f 20 ,00 0 wer e fi ne . Prad el li th enrep li edth atth e p ro bl em
wen t b ey on d t he 4,0 00 de fect iv e am po ul es ; as am

po ul es were co nt in ui ng to tu rn pi nk , he c ou ldno t t el l h ow m an y wou ldul ti m at el y

pro ve de fect iv e. Prad el li di d
no t re tu rnth e d efec ti ve am po ul es , bu t Th io ne sen t Ad va nc ed6,7 00 rep la cem en t
am po ul es in Nov em

be r 20 05
. Dur in g t he su m

m er o f 20 06 , Adv an cedan d Th io ne att em pt edto ren eg ot ia te th e Lic en si ng Agre em en t. The ren eg ot ia ti on effo rts fai le d. B.
7On Se pt em be r 26 , 20 06 , Adv an cedfil edsu itag ai ns t Th io ne forda m ag es in th e Ci rcu itCo urt o f Pal m Beac h C ou nt y , Flo rid a. Init s co m pl ai nt , Adv an ced cl ai m edth atThi on e h adbre ach edth e Lic en si ng Agre em en t an d a n i m pl ie d
warra nt y by pro vi di ng Adv an cedwith d efec ti ve am po ul es . Thi on e ti m el y

9
rem ov edth e cas e to th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a, an d a fte r th e d is tri ctco urt 1 0 de ni edit s m ot io n t o d is m is s t he act io n, Th io ne an swe redAdv an ced ’s com pl ai nt
an d fi le d aco un te rcl ai m . The an swe r de ni edth atThi on e b reac he d t he Lice ns in g Agr eem en t an d any im

pl ie d warran ty. The c ou nt ercl ai m all eg edth atAdv an ced br each edth e Agr eem en t b y fai li ng to m ak e th e m in im um pu rch as es th e Agr eem en t requi redan d t ha t Th io ne was e nt it le d t o re co ve r th e p ro fit s i t wo ul d h av e earne d ha d Ad va nc edm ad e th e p ur ch as es . Adv an ced ’s ans wer t o Th io ne ’s 1 1
co un te rcl ai m

de ni edth e b reac h. Th e an swe r al so ass ert edth atThi on e’s br each of

The c omplaint also asserted c laims for bre ach of an implied covena

nt of g ood faith and 9 fair de aling , conver sion, and civil theft. These claims wer e disposed of a dverse ly to Advance d prior to the submission of the case to the jury and ar e not at issue her e. Thione re moved the ca se pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1441(a) on the ground that the 1 0 district court had origina l jurisdiction of the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)
. Thione also counte rcla imed for “ trade mark infringe ment,” “unf air c ompetition,” and 1 1 “fa lse adve rtising a

nd deceptive trade prac tices” unde r the L anham Ac t, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and for the “ violation of [the] right of publicity” under

Fla. Stat. § 540.08 and c ommon law. Thione also asser ted these c laims ag ainst Carl Pradelli and Nature City , L L C; Thione joined these par ties in the counter claim under Fe d. R. Civ. P . 13(h) a

nd 20(a) (2)( B) . All of these c laims were disposed of adve rsely

to Thione (the jury

found ag ainst Thione on the tra demar k infring ement and fa lse adve rtising c laims) and ar e not at issue her e. 8th e Agr eem en t re li ev edAdv an cedof i ts m in im um pu rch as e o bl ig at io ns an d, ad dr es si ng Thi on e’s cl ai m forlo stpro fit s, al le ge d tha t Th io ne ha d fa il edto
m it ig at e th e lo ss . Pri orto tri al , Adv an cedm ov edth e d is tri ctco urt i n l im in e to pre ve ntThi on e fro m pre se nt in g a ny evi de nc e o f lo stpro fit s t o the jury ontwo alt ern at iv e g ro un ds : (1 ) th e Agr eem en t, b y

it s t erm s, p recl ud edth e rec ov ery of lo stpro fit s; an d (2 ) th e te st im on y of t he witne ss Thi on e p la nn edto cal l t o c al cu la te th e lo ss , Dr. Rob ertD. Co st on , an e co no m ic s p ro fes so r, co ul d n otqu al ify as ex pe rt t es ti m on y . The co urt de ni edth e m ot io n wi th ou t p reju di ce t o Ad va nc ed ’s rig htto ob ject t o t he in tro du ct io n o f su ch ev id en ce attri al
. On Ap ril 14 , 20 09 , th e cas e p ro ceed edto tri al on Adv an ced ’s cla im s fo r br each of c on tra ctan d i m pl ie d warran ty andThi on e’s co un te rcl ai m forbre ach of
co nt ract . Adv an cedpre se nt edtes ti m on y rel at in g t o t he cir cu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e ex ecu ti on of t he Lice ns in g Ag reem en t, i ts subs eque ntrece ip t o f th e d efec ti ve
am po ul es , andth e st ep s i t t oo k t o h av e Thi on e rem edy th e p ro bl em . Then , aft er cal cu la ti ng th e d am ag es itin curredas ares ul t o f Thi on e’s al le ge d b reac he s, s om e $2 .07 5 m il li on , Adv an cedres te d i ts cas e. Thi on e, in it s ca se , pre se nt edev id en ce t o s up po rt i ts vi ew of th e p art ie s’
res pe ct iv e p erfo rm an ces of t he Agre em en t, an d, o ve r Adv an ced ’s ren ewed
9ob

jecti onto th e ad m is si bi li ty of hi s an ti ci pa te d t es ti m on y , cal le d Dr. Co st on to th e wit ne ss st an d t o e st ab li sh th e p ro fit s Th io ne wou ldha ve earn edha d Ad vanc ed
m ad e th e p ur ch as es th e Agr eem en t re qu ire d i t t o m ak e th ro ug h t he li fe o f th e Agr eem en t. Usi ng th e m in im um pu rch as es th e Agr eem en t re qu ire d Ad va nc edto
m ak e th ro ug h t he fir stqu art er o f 20 09 , whi ch to ta le d abo ut$9 m il li on , Co st on 1 2
subt ract edThi on e’s co st s o f go od s an d e xp en se s an d a rri ve d a t a n etpro fitlo ss of
aro un d $ 4.7 m il li on . Afte r th e ev id en ce cl os ed , on Apri l 2 4, t he di st ric t co urt n ot edforth e rec or d th atAdv an cedwant edto m ov e th e co urt fo r jud gm en t as a m atte r of law (p ur su an t to Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 0( a)) a ndth ensen t t he cas e to th e jury; 1 3 Adv an cedco ul d p res en t i ts m ot io n, an d t he co urt wo ul d ru le on it , whi le th e jury
was de li be rat in g. As Adv an cedwas p rep ari ng to pro ceed , ho wev er, the jury returne d i ts ve rd ic ts . It fo un d i n fa vo r of Thi on e o n a ll of Adva nc ed ’s cla im s an d award edit$2 .5 m il li on on it s b reac h o f co nt ractco un te rcl ai m . Afte r po ll in g a ndth endi sc ha rg in g t he jury, th e co urt i nv it edAdv an cedto pr oc eed . Adv an cedm ov edforjud gm en t as a m at te r of law o n i ts bre ach of
See supra

note 1. 1 2 The c ourt did so, it said, because “the tria l had g one on long er tha n we a nticipated 1 3 [and] we ha d jurors who ha d indicated tra vel plans and othe r matters.” Trial Tr., vol. 14, at 1638.
10co nt ractcla im an d Th io ne ’s bre ach of c on tra ctco un te rcl ai m . Adv an cedarg ue d th atitwas e nt it le d t o ju dg m en t o n t he gro un ds th atThi on e h adm at eri al ly br each edth e Lic en si ng Agre em en t an d t he co nt ractba rredth e rec ov ery of lo st pr of it s. As anad di ti on al gro un d fo r jud gm en t o n t he co un te rcl ai m , Adv an ced arg ue d t ha t Dr. Co st on ’s tes ti m on y lac ke d p ro ba ti ve va lu e an d t hu s s ho ul d b e st ric ke n fr om

th e rec or d. The di stric t co urt d en ie d Ad va nc ed ’s m ot io ns . The co urt t he n s etMay 20 a s th e d ead li ne forfil in g p os t-t ria l m ot io ns ; t he reaf te r, on May 4, th e co urt en te reda fin al jud gm en t fo r Thi on e in acco rd an ce wi th th e jury’ s v erd ic ts . On M ay 20 , Adv an cedm ov edth e d is tri ctco urt p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 5 0( b) forjud gm en t as a m at te r of law o n i ts bre ach of c on tra ct cl ai m an d Th io ne ’s cou nt ercl ai m . Adv an cedm ov edalt ern at iv el y pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 9( a) fo r a n ew tr ia l o n the da m ag es ele m en t o f Thi on e’s co un te rcl ai m . The co urt d en ie d the se alt ern at iv e m ot io ns on May 22, 1 4
an d o n J un e 1 6, Ad va nc edfil eda no ti ce o f ap pe al . The n ot ic e st at edth at Adv an cedwas app eal in g t he fin al jud gm en t en te redon May 4 an d t he di st ric t
co urt’s d en ia l o f it s p os t-t ria l m ot io ns on May 22. We hav e juri sd ic ti on ov er the

Advanc ed also moved the court pursua nt to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter and ame nd its 1 4 judgme nt. 11ap pe al of t he po st -tr ia l m ot io ns pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1 b ut , as i nd ic at edin

th e m arg in , no t t he fin al jud gm en t. 1 5

Thione conte nds that we lac k jurisdiction to entertain Adva nced’ s appea l beca

use it 1 5 was not filed within 30 day s of the entr y of the judgment. See F ed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1)( A). A timely motion filed pursuant to Fe d. R. Civ. P . 50(b) or 59—that is, no later than 10 da y s after the judg ment is entere d, see F ed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), 59 (2009)—tolls the time for appe alingthe judgme nt, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a )(4) (A). A dvance d’s Rule 50(b) a nd Rule 59(a) and (e ) motions wer e not filed within 10 day s of the judgment’s entry , howeve r, and, thus, as Thionecorr ectly points out, t hey

did not toll the time for a ppealingthe judg ment. “[T] he timely

filing of a notice of

appea l in a civil case is a jurisdictional require ment.” Bow les v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S . Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007). It is a jurisdictional require ment beca

use “[t] he time limits in Appellate Rule 4(a) ar e base d on the statutory time limit s for filinga notice of appea l found in 28 U.S.C. § 2107.” Gree n v. DEA, 606 F .3d 1296, 1301 (11th Cir. 2010). Restrictions on a district cour t’s authority

to ext end a f

iling dea dline, howeve r, ar e anothe r matter. An example of such a r estriction is found in Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 6(b) (2), whic h prohibits a district court fr om ext endingthe time for f iling motions under Rules 50(b) or 59. Rule 6(b) is not grounded in a statutory require ment. Rule 6(b) is there fore classified a s a cla ims-proce ssing r ule rather than a

jurisdictional rule. See K ontrick v. Ry an, 540 U.S. 443, 454–56, 124 S. Ct. 906, 915–16 (2004). Whi le a pa rty cannot f orfe it an objection to a cour

t’s failureto apply

a jurisdictional rule be cause lack of subject matter jurisdiction is alway s a valid objec tion, an objection to a cour t’s failureto apply

a cla imsproce ssing r

ule ca n be for feited. I d. at 459–60, 124 S. Ct. at 917–18. In this case, Adva

nced ha d 10 day s from the e ntry of judgment on May

4 to file motions under Rule 50(b) and Rule 59. F ed. R. Civ. P. 50(b); 59(a), ( e) ( 2009). B eca use we ekends w ere excluded in calculating the time pe riod for f iling these motions, see Fe d. R. Civ. P . 6(a) (2) (2009), the motions had to be f iled by May 18. Although the district court attempted to e x tend the time for f

iling them until May

20, that attempt was inef fec tive beca

use Rule 6(b)( 2) prohibited the extension. Gree n, 606 F.3d at 1300. Thus, Advance d’s Rule 50(b) a nd Rule 59 motions were untimely

and did not toll the tim e period for appe alingthe May 4 judgme nt. I d. (“Untimely

motions under Rules 59 and 60 will not toll the time for f iling an a ppeal.” (quoting Advanc ed Estimating Sy s., Inc. v. Riney , 77 F.3d 1322, 1323 ( 11th Cir. 1996) (per curia m))). A s Fe dera l Rule of Appellate Proc edure 4(a) is a jurisdictional rule, Adva nced’ s appea l of the May 4 judgme nt was untimely , and we lack jurisdiction to hear it. Howeve r, since Rule 6(b) is a cla ims-proce ssing r ule, Thione, in fa iling to object to the district court’s violation of the r ule (by extending the time for

filing post-tria l motions ) for feited its objection to the tim e extension. In light of this forf eiture, the district court had the authority to enterta in Advance d’s motions. Advance d appea led the district cour t’s order denying the motions wit hin 30 day s of the cour t’s entry of the orde r. Since that a ppeal wa s timely , we have jurisdiction to review the district c ourt’s May 22 order as to Advanc ed’s post-tria l motions
. 12II.

Adv an cedarg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e g ran te d i t ju dg m en t as a
m at te r of law o n i ts bre achof c on tra ctcla im an d Th io ne ’s cou nt ercl ai m . Adv an cedals o a rg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin subm it ti ng th e is su e o f Thi on e’s lo stpro fit s t o t he jury be cau se th e Lic en si ng Agre em en t fo recl os edth e
reco ve ry of l os t p ro fit s as a rem edy forbre achof t he Agre em en t. Ass um in g t ha t 1 6 th e Agr eem en t al lo wedth e rec ov ery of lo stpro fit s, Ad va nc edsee ks a ne w tri al be cau se th e jury’ s $ 2.5 m il li on awardforlo stpro fit s was ba se d o n i na dm is si bl e
ex pe rt o pi ni on tes ti m on y an d, m or eo ve r, was a ga in stth e g reatweig htof the
ev id en ce. In subp artA, we con si de r whe th er the co urt erredin de nyin g Ad va nc ed jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law i n wh ol e o r in pa rt. In subp artB, we co ns id er wh ethe r th e co urt s ho ul d h av e g ran te d Ad va nc eda ne w tri al on th e is su e o f Thi on e’s da m ag es . A.

Advanc ed pre sents this argument in the context of its Rule 59(e ) motion to alter or 1 6 amend the judgment, but if Advanc ed is corr ect in the a rgument, it would be entitled to judgment on the counter claim pursuant to Rule 50(b) . What Advance d is actually contendingis that the district court should not have pe rmitted Thione to prese nt evidence on its lostprofits (in acc ordanc e with Advanc ed’s objec tion, raised initially in its pretrial motion in l imine), bec ause their re cover

y was pre cluded by

the Agree ment, and ac cording ly should have struc k the lostprofits eleme nt of Thione’s c ounterc laim at the close of the evidenc e. The n, with the lost profits element having be en struck f rom its counterc laim, Thione would have had no other damag es to prese nt to the jury , so Advanc ed would be e ntitled to judgment. For convenie nce, w e addr ess the objection in subpart A, whic h addre sses Advanc ed’s Rule 50(b) objections. 13Whe n c on si de rin g wh ethe r orno t a r ul in g o n am ot io n fo r [jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law] sh ou ldbe up he ld , th e st an da rdof r ev ie w to be ap pl ie d b y

th is Co urt i s the same as th atap pl ie d b y th e d is tri ctco urt. Thu s, we co ns id er al l the ev id en ce, an d t he in fere nc es dra wn th eref ro m , in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty . Cart er v . Cit y

of M ia m i, 8 70 F.2d57 8, 5 81 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (fo ot no te s o m it te d)
. W e th ende te rm in e whe th er, i n t hi s l ig ht , th ere was an y “ ‘leg al ly suf

fic ie ntba si s fo r a rea so nabl e jury to fi ndin fav or ’ of th e n on m ov in g p art y .” Bro ug h v
. Im pe ria l St erl in g Lt d., 2 97 F.3d11 72 , 11 77 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (quo ti ng Cart er v . Deci si on One Co rp ., 12 2 F .3d99 7, 1 00 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) ). Adv an cedarg ue s t ha t t he jury la ck eda le ga ll y su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r fi nd in g fo r Thi on e o n Ad va nc ed ’s bre ach of c on tra ctcla im an d fo r Thi on e o n it s b reac h o f co nt ractco un te rcl ai m fortwo reas on s: (1) Thi on e’s in cl us io n o f de fect iv e am

po ul es in th e 2 0,0 00 am

po ul e sh ip m en t o f Sep te m be r 1, 2 00 4,
co ns ti tu te d abre ach of t he co nt ractas awho le ; an d (2 ) Thi on e th erea fte r rep ud ia te d t he Lice ns in g Ag reem en t b y fai li ng to pro vi de Adv an cedwith a de qu at e
as su ran ces . Con se qu en tl y , Adv an cedwas re li ev edof i ts ob li ga ti on to m ak e fu rth er p ur ch as es (aft er the fou rth qu art er o f 20 04 ). 1. Pu rs uantto Geor gi a la w, th e Lic en si ng Agre em en t i s anin st al lm en t
co nt ract . “ An ‘in st al lm en t co nt ract ’ is on e whi ch requi res or aut ho riz es th e 14de li ve ry

of g oo ds in sep arat e lo ts to be sep arat el y acce pt ed
. . . .” O.C.G.A. § 11
- 2- 61 2( 1) . “ Whe ne ve r no nc on fo rm it y or d efau ltwith re sp ectto on e o r m or e in st al lm en ts subs tant ia ll y im pa irs th e v al ue of t he who le co nt ractth ere i s b reac h o f th e [i ns ta ll m en t co nt ractas a ] who le .” Id . § 1 1- 2- 61 2( 3) . Viewi ng th e ev id en ce i n th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Thi on e, le ss th an5,0 00 of t he 25 ,00 0 a m po ul es sh ip pe d by the en d o f 20 04 were d am ag ed . Becau se th e Lic en si ng Agre em en t co ve redfar
m or e th anth e sa le of a m

po ul es , a reas on ab le jury co ul d fi ndth aton e o rd er i n whi chles s t ha n t wen ty perce ntof t he go od s wer e im pa ire d d idno t b reac h t he
co nt ractas awho le —es pe ci al ly whe n t he ord er i n que st io n c ov eredon ly $41 ,25 0 of th e n earl y

$9 m il li on co nt ract . Mor eo ve r, Adv an cedne ve r ha d apro bl em with th e 5 ,00 0 am

po ul es sh ip pe d i n No ve m be r 20 04 or t he 6,7 00 rep la cem en t am po ul es sh ip pe d i n 2 00 5. Gi ve n t hi s ev id en ce, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly rejecte d Adv an ced ’s arg um en t t ha t Th io ne ’s sh ip m en t o f th e d efec ti ve am po ul es bre ach ed th e en ti re Lic en si ng Agre em en t. 2. Geo rg ialaw p ro vi de s t ha t “ [w]henreas on ab le gro un ds forin se cu rit y ari se wit h re sp ectto th e p erfo rm an ce o f ei th er p art y th e o th er m ay

in writ in g d em an d ad equa te ass ur an ce o f du e p erfo rm an ce an d u nt il he rece iv es su ch ass ur an ce m ay if c omm erci al ly reaso nabl e su sp en d a ny perfo rm an ce fo r whi ch he ha s n otalr ead y 15rece iv edth e ag reedreturn.” O.C.G.A. § 1 1- 2- 60 9( 1) . Of cou rs e, “ [a] part y

al read y in bre ach is no t en ti tl edto in vo ke sec ti on 2-6 09 by dem an di ng
as su ran ces .” Hop e’s Arch it ectur al Pro ds ., Inc . v. Lun dy’ s C on st r., Inc ., 78 1 F
. Supp . 71 1, 7 15 (D. Kan. 1 99 1) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . GreatPla in s Gas ifi cat io n Ass oc s., 8 19 F.2d83 1, 8 35 (8t h C ir. 1 98 7) ). W e ag ree t ha t “ [t]o h ol d o th erwi se 1 7
wou ldall ow a p arty

to av oi d l iabi li ty for b reac hi ng it s co nt ractby inv ok in g 2- 60 9.” Id. By Jan ua ry 1, 2 00 5, Ad va nc edwas i n b reac h o f th e Lic en si ng Agre em en t be cau se itha d n otm etth e m in im um pu rch as in g re qu ire m en t o f th e la stqu art er o f 20 04 . There fo re, Adva nc edwou ldha ve ha d t o m ak e a v al idde m an d fo r ad equa te
as su ran ces be fo re tha t d at e. The o nl y co m m un ic at io n tha t Ad va nc edpo in ts to as a de m an d fo r ad equa te ass ur an ces m ad e p rio r to th e en d o f 20 04 is Perry’ s Sep te m be r 2, 2 00 4 e m ai l i nq ui rin g wh ethe r th e p in k am po ul es m ean t t ha t t he re
was “ a p ro du ct io n i ss ue .” The d is tri ctco urt d idno t err by decl in in g t o ru le th at , as
a m atte r of

law, t hi s s im

pl e em ai l i nq ui ry

co ns ti tu te d a“ writ in g [t ha t] dem an d[ ed ] ad equa te ass ur an ce o f du e p erfo rm an ce,” fo r a rea so nabl e jury cou ldhave
co nc lu de d i t d idno t. See SPS In du s., In c. v. At l. St eel Co ., 36 6 S .E.2d41 0, 4 11 , 41 3– 14 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 88 ) (d ecl in in g t o ru le th ata le tt er d em an di ng im m ed ia te O.C.G.A. § 11-2- 609 is identical to U.C.C. § 2-609 in all material re spects. 1 7 16in fo rm at io n o n ade fect iv e p ro du ctco ns ti tu te d a s a m atte r of law a d em an d fo r ad equa te ass ur an ces , in st eadch arac te riz in g i t as “ no th in g m or e th ana reque stfor in fo rm at io n” ); s ee al so Aut om at edEner gy Sy s., In c. v. Fi be rs & Fab ric s o f Ga., In c., 29 8 S .E.2d32 8, 3 29 –3 0 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 1 98 2) (ho ld in g t ha t a r eque stfora pa rty to s ig n fi na nc ia l s ta te m en ts di d n otco ns ti tu te a “ de m an d [o f] ass ur an ce o f du e p erfo rm an ce”)
. 3. Adv an ced ’s arg um en t t ha t t he Lice ns in g Ag reem en t b arre d Th io ne ’s
reco ve ry of l os t p ro fit s i s g ro un de d i n P arag rap h 6 B o f th e Agr eem en t, wh ic h ad dr es se s t he effe ctof Ad va nc ed ’s fai lu re t o m eetth e m in im um pu rch as e requi rem en ts . Parag rap h 6 B p ro vi de d t ha t i f Adv an ced“ fai l[e d] to ord er an d p ay

1 8 fo r atlea stth e m in im

um do ll ar am ou ntof P ro du ct s dur in g a ny app li cab le pe rio d of ti m e,” Th io ne co ul d, “ at[it s] so le an d abs ol ut e d is cret io n,” term in at e o r
ren eg ot ia te th e Agr eem en t, o r rev ok e it s ex cl us iv it y . Adv an cedco nt en ds th at th es e rem ed ie s wer e th e o nl y rem ed ie s av ai labl e to Thi on e. The pro vi si on inGeor gi a’s co m m erci al co de th atgo ve rn s l im it at io n o f
rem ed ie s p ro vi de s, i n re le va ntpa rt, t ha t s ub ject t o c ert ai n re stric ti on s, an ag reem en t “ m ay

li m itor a lt er the m eas ur e o f da m ag es reco ve rab le un de r th is
The re levant par

t of Paragraph 6B is quoted in part I .A, supra. 1 8 17art ic le ,” bu t t ha t “ [r]eso rt t o arem edy [in anag reem en t] is op ti on al un le ss th e
rem edy is ex pr es sl y

ag reedto be ex cl us iv e, in whi ch cas e itis th e so le rem edy .” O.C.G.A. § 11 -2 -7 19 (1 ). Acco rd in g t o t he co m m en t t o Geo rg ia ’s ena ct m en t o f 1 9 th e Uni fo rm

Co m m erci al Co de , th is lan gu ag e “ crea te s a p res um pt io n t ha t cl au se s pr es cri bi ng rem ed ie s ar e cu m ul at iv e rat he r th anex cl us iv e. If th e p art ie s i nt en d t he te rm to de sc rib e th e so le rem edy un de r th e co nt ract , th is m us t b e cl earl y
ex pr es se d.” O.C.G.A. § 1 1- 2- 71 9 c m t. 2
. The st atut ory

lan gu ag e an d c omm en t s ho w a st ro ng rel uc ta nc e to co ns tru e a
co nt ractua l re m edy

as e xc lu si ve . Cou rts ha ve sh aredth is rel uc ta nc e, so m et im es refu si ng to co ns tru e rem ed ie s as li m it ed —ev enwhen th ey

ha ve th ou gh t t ha t an
ex cl us iv e rem edy

was i nt en de d— if t he m ag ic word s “ ex cl us iv e” o r “ so le ” rem edy
were n otus edan d t he ag reem en t l an gu ag e d idno t o th erwi se “ sp eci fy th atth e
rem edy or r em ed ie s p ro vi de d wer e to be ex cl us iv e o f an y ot he r rem edy

whi ch ap pe ll an t ‘m ig htha ve un de r th e v ari ou s p ro vi si on s o f th e UCC.’” Pars on s v . 2 0 Mo to r Hom es of Am ., Inc ., 46 5 S o. 2 d 1 28 5, 1 29 1 (F la . 1s t Di st . Ct. Ap p. 1 98 5) (quo ti ng Co un ci l Br os ., Inc . v. Ray Burn er Co ., 47 3 F .2d40 0, 4 06 (5t h C ir.
This provision is i dentical to the Unif orm Commercial Code’ s provision on lim itation 1 9 of re medy , U.C.C. § 2-719, in all material re spects. The wor d “sole” appea

rs in Paragraph 6B , but it modi fies Thione’ s discretion, not 2 0 Thione’s re medies. 1819 73 )). App lying th es e p rin ci pl es , we con cl ud e th atbe cau se th e Lic en si ng

Agr eem en t d oe s n otcle arl y ex pr es s t ha t t he li st edrem ed ie s ar e th e ex cl us iv e
rem ed ie s av ai labl e to Thi on e, reg ard le ss of wh atth e p art ie s’ in te nt io ns m ay ha ve be en , th e Agr eem en t d idno t ef fect iv el y li m itThi on e’s rem ed ie s. Hen ce, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in all owi ng Thi on e’s cl ai m forlo stpro fit s t o g o fo rward
. B. Adv an cedarg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g i ts
m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l on th e is su e o f da m ag es . A new tria l i s warran te d, i t 2 1 2 2
co nt en ds , bec au se th e jury’ s $ 2.5 m il li on award(1) was b as edon ex pe rt o pi ni on te st im on y th atsh ou ldno t h av e b een adm it te d, an d (2 ) was ex ces si ve an d t he refo re
In its opening brief on a ppeal, Adva

nced a rgues that it should rece ive a ne w trial on the 2 1 g round that the c ourt failed to instruct the jur y , in acc ordanc e with Advanc ed’s r equest, that if Thione believe d that Advanc ed had br eac hed the L icensingAgree ment, it was obligated to send notice to Advanc ed and g ive Advanc ed 30 day s in which to cure the bre ach. A dvance d did not prese nt this ground in its Rule 50(b) or Rule 59 motion. Thus, since our r eview is limited to the district court’s orde r deny ing those motions, as we explain in note 15, supra, we do not c onsider this argument. In addition to seekinga new trial on damag es on the grounds set out in the textthat 2 2 follows, Advanc ed conte nds that a newtrial is nece ssary beca use the c ourt failed to include an interrog atory

on the jury

verdic t form askingwhether Thione had a

rea sonable opportunity

to mitigate its dama g es but failed to do so. We dispose of the a rgument with this brief comment. The jury did rec eive a

n instruction on miti g ation of dama g es, as Adva nced properly

conce des. Whether the c ourt should have g one one ste p further and included the interrog atory Advanc ed proposed in the ve rdict for m was a matter committed to the court’ s discretion, Worsham v. A.H. Robins C o., 734 F.2d 676, 690 ( 11th Cir. 1984). The district cour t did not abuse its discretion, and in deny

ing A dvance d a new

trial on the ground that the a bsence of the propose d interrog atory prejudice d its defense ag ainst Thione’s counte rcla im, the district court may have ta ken into acc ount the fac t that the jury did reduc e the amount of lost profits Thione was see king f rom $4.7 milli on to $2.5 mill ion. 19co nt rary to “ th e g reatweig htof t he ev id en ce,” Will ia m s v . Cit y of Va ld os ta , 68 9 F.2 d 9 64 , 97 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2)
. 2 3 1.

“ Ourrev ie w of t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to adm it[ex pe rt] tes ti m on y is
ve ry li m it ed ” an d i s re vi ewed“ on ly for ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Mai z v . Viran i, 2 53 F.3 d 6 41 , 66 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Prio r to tri al , Adv an cedm ov edth e d is tri ctco urt in li m in e to ba r Dr. Co st on fro m tes ti fy in g a s an ex pe rt o n t he is su e o f Thi on e’s

In its opening brief on a ppeal, unde r the he ading“The Trial Court Err ed in Deny ing 2 3 Appellant’s Motion for Remittitur or to Reduce or Set-Aside D amag es Awa rded to Appe llee,” Advanc ed argues that “[b]ecause the jury ’s ver dict was not supported by competent e vidence , it should have be en re duced or set aside, or

in the alternative, a new

trial order ed.” B rief at 54–55. We expl ain in this subpart why competent e vidence did support the jury ’s ver dict, but it is also important to ex plain why the cour t would be unable to pr ovide Advanc ed with the primar y relief reque sted—that the district court or der a remittitur or itself reduc e or se t aside the damag es. In a ca se in which the pla intiff (her e, Thione) has re cover ed a mone y judgme nt in acc ordanc e with a jury

verdic t, the district court has the disc retion to grant the de fenda nt (here , counter -def

endant Adva

nced) a new

trial unless the plaintiff re mits a portion of the judgment. Griff in v. Cit y of Opa -L ocka, 261 F .3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2001). In its mot ion to alter or amend the judgment, see supr a, note 13, Adva nced a sked the c ourt to order a re mitti tur, but its motion and acc ompanying me morandum did not ask the cour t to order Thione to remit a portion of the a war d or suffe r the grantingof a ne w trial. Rather , Advanc ed aske d the cour t simpl y to reduc e the a

mount of the $2.5 milli on awa rded to Thione. B eca

use Adva nced did not indicate the amount of the r emittitur or judgment r eduction the district cour t should have orde red—put another way , since Adva

nced did not point the district court to a dollar amount that would not be excessive—it is unclear how the district court c ould have divined suc h amount. That leaves the c ourt with the option of itself reduc ing or setting a side the jury ’s damag es awa rd. We are awa

re of no authority , in the statutes or the c ases, holdingthat a district judg e has the discre tion to reduce the plaintiff’s money judgme nt by

a sum ce rtain and e nter a new judgme nt in the amount of the diffe renc e. Reduc ing a money judgme nt in this way

could, in eff ect, de prive the pla intiff of its Seventh Amendment right of trial by jury . See Johansen v. Combusti on Eng ’g , Inc., 170 F .3d 1320, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999). In any event, the c ourt did not abuse its discre tion by

denying the post-trial motion. 20lo stpro fit s. In supp ort o f it s m ot io n i n l im in e an d l at er attri al , Adv an cedarg ue d

th atCo st on sh ou ldno t b e p erm it te d t o t es ti fy be cau se hi s m etho do lo gy was to cal cu la te Thi on e’s an ti ci pa te d p ro fit s s im pl y by usi ng pro

jecte d re ve nu e an d c os t da tapro vi de d b y

Thi on e witho utve rif

y in g b efo reh an d t he accu racy of th e 2 4 pr ojec te d re ve nu e an d the un de rlyin g d at a. Adv an cedcla im edth atth e p ro jecte d
rev en ue an d u nd erl y in g d at a were f la wed ; the y

ass um edanin co rrec t ra ti o a t wh ic h Adv an cedwou ldpu rch as e th e Tes t Ki ts an d Di et ary Supp le m en t. 2 5 W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s ex pl an at io n fo r de nyin g Ad va nc ed ’s ob jecti onto Dr. Cos to n’s t es ti m on y —Ad va nc ed ’s arg um en ts wentno t t o ad m is si bi li ty butto “ th e wei gh t t o b e at tri bu te d t o [h is ] te st im on y .” Adv an ced
was free to ch al le ng e—o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n a ndon reb ut ta l—th e rel iabi li ty of

In deter mining the a

mount of costs to deduct fr om the reve nue g ener ated by 2 4 Advanc ed’s pur chase s, Coston relied on expense and pric ing da ta re ceive d from Thione. Advanc ed also a

rgued that Coston’s calc ulations were flawe d beca use Coston 2 5 calc ulated dama g es fr om the time of brea ch, not the date Thione sent Adva nced a letter in August 2007 notifying A dvance d that it was in brea ch. The date of brea ch wa s the appropriate period to beg in calculating damag es—“‘ [t ]he tim e whe n perf ormanc e should have taken plac e is the time as of whic h damag es ar e mea sured.’ In many case s, the appropriate date for c alculation of damag es is the date of

brea ch.” E nergy

Capital Corp. v. United States, 302 F.3d 1314, 1330 (F ed. Cir. 2002) (quotingRey nolds v. United States, 158 F. Supp. 719, 725 (Ct. Cl. 1958)). We also note that the date Thione sent the le tter of ter mination is notrele vant bec ause A dvance d had alre ady brought suit aga inst Thione at that point. Cf. Sol itron Device s, Inc. v. Hone y well, Inc., 842 F.2d 274, 278 ( 11th Cir. 1988) (explaining that af ter a party terminates a

contra ct, “a

cure notice fr om [ the other pa

rty] . . . serve[s] no purpose. . . . Where the contra ct has a lrea dy been terminated by

the par ty alleg edly in brea ch, the [other] party ’s compliance or lac k of complianc e with [ a] termination clause is irre levant”)
. 21th e rev en ue pro jecti on s an d d at a o n wh ic h C os to n g ro un de d h is op in io ns an d t hu s th e wei gh t t he jury sh ou ldasc rib e to th os e o pi ni on s. W e fi ndno ab us e o f 2 6 di sc ret io n h ere. 2. Adv an ced ’s arg um en t t ha t t he $2 .5 m il li on dam ag es awardis ex ces si ve an d
co nt rary to t he gre atweig htof t he ev id en ce i s b as edpri m ari ly on t he ass um pt io n th atDr. Cos to n’s t es ti m on y sh ou ldno t h av e b een adm it te d. Hav in g c on cl ud ed th atth e co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a ll owi ng th e te st im on y , we m us t
co nc lu de th atth e jury’ s v erd ic t, wh ic h d idno t ex ceedth e am ou ntof C os to n’s cal cu la ti on s, was ne it he r ag ai ns t t he gre atweig htof t he ev id en ce n orex ces si ve . III. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we AFFI RM t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g Adv an ced ’s po st -tr ia l m ot io ns . SO ORDERED.

Advanc ed cr oss-examined Coston at length a bout the data he relied upon a nd the 2 6 assumptions he drew f

rom that data. I

n addition, Advance d called its own e x pert, Willi am David Ellrich, J r., in rebuttal, to criticiz e Coston’s opinions. 22