Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Aloecorp, Inc. v. Damken, L.L.C., 13-40554 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 13-40554 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-40554 Document: 00512490088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-40554 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED ALOECORP, INCORPORATED, January 6, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Plaintiff-Appellee Clerk v. DAMKEN, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CV-86 Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-A
More
Case: 13-40554 Document: 00512490088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-40554 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED ALOECORP, INCORPORATED, January 6, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Plaintiff-Appellee Clerk v. DAMKEN, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CV-86 Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Damken, L.L.C. appeals the judgment of the district court implementing the jury’s award of damages for breach of the construction contract between Damken and Plaintiff-Appellee Aloecorp, Incorporated. Our review of the record brought forward on appeal, in light of the applicable law as reflected in the appellate briefs of the parties, satisfies us that Damken’s claims, including that the district court abused its discretion * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 13-40554 Document: 00512490088 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 No. 13-40554 (1) by denying Damken’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and for judgment as a matter of law for anticipatory breach, early termination, and repudiation of a construction contract at issue, and (2) by refusing to submit the issue of restitution to the jury, are not sustained by the facts or the law. In sum, we perceive no reversible error and therefor affirm the district court’s award of damages, attorney’s fees and costs, court costs, and post-judgment interest. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer