Opinion ID: 781170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: dismissal of breach of contract claim absent excluded evidence

Text: 30 WCI's other principal argument on appeal is that the District Court abused its discretion in dismissing the contract claim because WCI still could prove damages without documentation. It seems to be making the rather novel assertion that certain damages still could be defined and recovered without any supporting evidence. To reiterate, the October 16, 2000 Stipulation stated that [s]hould the Plaintiff fail to provide such full and complete responses, the parties agree that Plaintiff shall be prohibited from presenting any evidence in support of its claim at the time of trial of the within action. WCI argues that because this language refers to claim in the singular, the District Court should have allowed it to prove damages not covered by the Stipulation. This assertion is implausible. Claim plainly refers to the breach of contract claim, not any one claim of damages among many ( e.g., a claim for lost profits from the sale price of the magazine, a claim for lost monthly wages, etc. ). 31 The District Court stated in a footnote that WCI's damages calculation is insufficient to warrant a trial on the merits. 2002 WL 89604, at  n. 5. Pennsylvania law requires that a plaintiff seeking to proceed with a breach of contract action must establish (1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract[,] and (3) resultant damages. CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Cutillo, 723 A.2d 1053, 1058 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). To prove damages, a plaintiff must give a factfinder evidence from which damages may be calculated to a reasonable certainty. ATACS Corp. v. Trans World Communications, Inc., 155 F.3d 659, 668 (3d Cir. 1998). At a minimum, reasonable certainty embraces a rough calculation that is not `too speculative, vague or contingent' upon some unknown factor. Id. at 669 (quoting Spang & Co. v. United States Steel Corp., 519 Pa. 14, 545 A.2d 861, 866 (1988)). The District Court concluded that 32 Plaintiff failed to provide any supporting documentation or expert reports or analysis to support its damages calculations. Plaintiff produced no evidence or documentation concerning costs and expenses Plaintiff avoided by not having to perform its sales duties under the contract. Nor has Plaintiff provided the basis for the itemized advertised commissions. In fact, the damages calculations, as presented, evince little more than the opinion of Reginald Ware. It is true ... that the Pennsylvania law of contracts allows for some uncertainty in calculating damages.... ATACS Corp., 155 F.3d at 670. However, [w]hile mathematical certainty is not required, the plaintiff must introduce sufficient facts upon which the jury can determine the amount of damages without conjecture. Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa.Super. 90, 464 A.2d 1243, 1257 (1983); see also Scully v. U.S. WATS, Inc., 238 F.3d 497, 515 (3d Cir.2001). After years of discovery, Plaintiff ... has failed to present evidence upon which the factfinder could base a damages calculation to a reasonable certainty. 33 2002 WL 89604, at  n. 5. 34 WCI makes no argument that the District Court's statements of law are incorrect. Instead, WCI contends that, without any supporting documentation, the Appellant could have testified in his case in chief that he received monthly wages of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) a month. Appellant's Br. at 27 (emphasis added). But WCI is the Appellant here; Ware has been dismissed as a party to this suit. And even if we were considering Ware's, and not WCI's, alleged damages, Ware's deposition testimony reveals that his damages calculation was an incomplete (and hardly precise) estimate, not evidence upon which a factfinder could determine damages to a reasonable certainty. 4 The operative agreements contained a number of formulas to determine the compensation to which each party was entitled in the event the contract was terminated. Calculating these formulas required information on several factors relating to the financial health of the magazine. A factfinder's ability to award WCI damages resulting from a breach of contract required far more specific evidence than could be provided by the testimony of Reginald Ware as to the damages that he personally suffered. 35 In sum, WCI has provided no reason to conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in dismissing the breach of contract claim, for WCI failed to present evidence from which a factfinder could determine damages with reasonable certainty.