Opinion ID: 1948327
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-June 30th Services and Quantum Meruit Ruling

Text: GMK contends in its cross-appeal that the trial court erred in denying recovery for services rendered after June 30, 1984 based upon an express or implied contract and in declining to consider its claim based upon a theory of quantum meruit. The trial court found that appellee failed to prove the existence of an oral contract after June 30th, either express or implied. We will not set aside the judgment of the trial court in a non-jury case except for errors of law, [or] unless it appears that the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Robinson v. Jones, 429 A.2d 1372, 1374 (D.C. 1981); D.C.Code § 17-305(a). The record adequately supports the trial court's determination on this issue. [29] Finally, appellee, GMK, argues that even if there were no contract, express or implied, for services rendered post-June 1984, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to let GMK amend the complaint to permit recovery based upon quantum meruit. The trial court refused to entertain this theory because of the ruling of the pretrial judge (Judge William Gardner). Initially, the pretrial judge had so ruled because GMK failed to plead the theory in its Third Amended Complaint and because GMK had relied consistently upon an express contract in seeking recovery. [30] GMK filed a motion to clarify, and the pretrial judge reaffirmed its ruling adding that [w]here the plaintiff had not alleged a claim on the implied contract or quantum meruit in its complaint, it cannot do so by means of a pretrial statement or a pretrial order. We find no abuse of discretion in the pretrial judge's decision to deny GMK leave to amend under the circumstances. [31] See Gordon v. Raven Systems & Research, Inc., 462 A.2d 10, 13-14 (D.C. 1983).