Opinion ID: 36378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence on Compensatory Damages

Text: Finally, Abbruzzese contends on appeal that no evidence supports the amount of compensatory damages awarded by the jury. Specifically, Abbruzzese asserts that Plaintiffs presented no evidence of the number of CAI options that they would have received had Plaintiffs not left CS. Abbruzzese claims that all of the evidence presented by Plaintiffs concerning the number of options lost was based on their breach-of-contract theory, i.e., 15 their allegation that Abbruzzese promised them that their CS options would “come forward” after the merger that never occurred. Abbruzzese therefore reasons that, because the district court refused to send Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claim to the jury, the record contained no evidence upon which the jury could base a finding that Plaintiffs lost a certain number of options as a result of Abbruzzese’s fraud. Here again, Abbruzzese admits hat he did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on fraud damages in his motion for judgment as a matter of law. Consequently, “the issue before us is whether there is any evidence to support the amount of damages for which the jury found [Abbruzzese] liable.” See Cramer, 6 F.3d at 1108 (emphasis added). Under this standard, we conclude that there was certainly evidence upon which the jury could have based its damages award. Specifically, as noted above, the jury heard that several CS executives–who were at or below Plaintiff’s level–received CAI options in March of 1999, shortly after the Plaintiffs were induced to leave by Abbruzzese’s fraud. From this, the jury could have concluded that absent Abbruzzese’s fraud, Webb and Dixon would have remained at CS and received CAI options, which were the same options that became quite lucrative in April of 1999, when CAI was acquired by WorldCom. Accordingly, there was no plain error.