Court Opinion

ID: 33445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 19:05:10+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:49:55.186084
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
  
   *
  

  The district court’s summary judgment was predicated solely on the rejection of an expert’s opinion of the causal connection between PST’s breach of contract and HNRA’s damages. While Shepherd’s opinion about a minimum collection percentage may not support a judgment for certain dollars, it does have admissible weight to prove that HNRA was damaged because of the defendant’s delay and failure to move to collection of the accounts. And it is delay that is the essence of this expert’s testimony. With evidence of breach of contract that caused damages in the loss of some extent of collections, HNRA sufficiently resisted summary judgment.
 

  Shepherd’s testimony should not have been excluded. The court’s ruling on reconsideration becomes moot.
 

  The judgment is reversed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings.
 

   *
  

   Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.