Court Opinion

ID: 9437269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 03:47:46.482881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:40.365740
License: Public Domain

LUCERO, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the opinion of my colleague Judge Briscoe in all regards save one — her view that this case should be remanded with directions to award additional consequential damages to Leanin’ Tree. Upon the facts of this case, and limiting my concurrence to the facts of this case, it is my considered opinion that on the issue of consequential damages the district court’s disposition was correct. See Colo.Rev. Stat. § 4-2-715 cmt. 4 (“Loss may be determined in any manner which is reasonable under the circumstances.”); Eccher v. Small Bus. Admin., 643 F.2d 1388, 1391-92 (10th Cir.1981) (“We will not disturb the district court’s determination of damages unless clearly erroneous.”); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Reviewing the record before us, I cannot say that the district court’s grant of some consequential damages, and rejection of others, is unreasonable under the circumstances and thus clearly erroneous. For that reason I would affirm the district court.
I note that because there is a lack of a majority supporting remand, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects.