Opinion ID: 4276627
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Billing Records

Text: Steel argues that any entries not directly related to the CEMS were deducted from the $172,704.97 in fees it sought to recover. Further, Steel says the district court ignored “Steel’s unchallenged, unrebutted testimony and evidence at trial that Steel meticulously subtracted from its invoices any attorneys’ fees and costs unrelated to the CEMS units.” Steel’s argument misses the point. The issue is not whether the fees are “related to” the CEMS or the NOV. The issue is whether the fees resulted from Altech’s breach. See MISS. CODE ANN. § 75-2-714(1) (stating a buyer may recover damages for the loss “resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller’s breach”) 4 Caples was not designated as an expert and the district court disregarded his testimony that the MDEQ did not consider the self-reported violations in choosing the fine amount. Steel did not appeal the ruling. 8 Case: 17-60298 Document: 00514478140 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/18/2018 No. 17-60298 (emphasis added); § 75-2-715(2) (“[C]onsequential damages resulting from the seller’s breach include . . . .”) (emphasis added). A review of the record does not show that Steel’s attorneys’ fees resulted from Altech’s breach. For example, over 30 hours relate to Steel’s “response” to the MDEQ’s NOV—of which a large portion is devoted to Steel self-reporting its own violations. Further, there is an entry of 5.4 hours for “Review of stack testing data and information provided by A. Gurley as relates to NOV and other potential violations.” (emphasis added). The bills also contain multiple entries related to the agreed order, which Steel (through Chappell) admitted was not wholly related to the CEMS. 5 Confronted with Caples’s testimony, Chappell’s admission about the agreed order, and billing entries unrelated to Altech’s breach, the district court was free to assign more weight to the entries and Chappell’s admission. Thus, the district court’s finding—that Altech did not prove with reasonable certainty the fees resulted from Altech’s breach—is supported by the evidence. The district court did not commit clear error in denying recovery of Altech’s attorneys’ fees. Judgment AFFIRMED. 5 Examples of entries related to the agreed order include: (1) “01/22/14 GCR . . . conference with Chris Wells (MDEQ) re: disclosure of noncompliance issue related to nonreporting of September stack test and request of conference with MDEQ to work on issues associated with Agreed Order;” (2) “04/04/14 GCR . . . conference with Wells re: revision to Agreed Order;” and (3) “04/10/14 GCR . . . begin drafting SEP proposal and revisions to draft Agreed Order.” (emphasis added). 9