ORDER AND REASONS

KURT D. ENGELHARDT, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is "Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Lost-Profits Damages" (Rec. Doc. 265). Having carefully considered the parties' submissions, the record in this matter, and applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion is GRANTED to the extent stated herein relative to any damages award for "lost profits" or "lost business value" sought by Plaintiffs Peaker Energy Group., LLC ("Peaker") and Energy Coast Logistics Terminal, LLC ("ECLT") in this matter.

With their motion, Defendants Cargill, Inc. and Sugar Growers and Refiners, Inc. ("SUGAR") argue that Plaintiffs are precluded from recovering damages for "lost profits" in this matter for three different reasons. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot recover "lost profits" in this case because such damages cannot be proven with reasonable certainty.1 Second, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cannot show the requisite causation — that Defendants' actions — "as opposed to external forces" — caused Plaintiffs' alleged damages.2 Third, Defendants maintain that the proper measure of damages is the difference between the cost of obtaining a lease at the LSR site compared to an alternate site, and that Plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence of "what it would have cost them to develop the Project a suitable, alternative location."3

In ruling in Defendants' favor relative to the instant motion, the Court does not find it necessary to address Defendants' second and third grounds for their motion. Instead, the Court focuses solely on Defendants' first contention: that Plaintiffs have failed to put forth evidence sufficient to prove with reasonable certainty that Plaintiffs' venture, but for Defendants' allegedly wrongful conduct, would have been successful and generated profits. As urged by Defendants, damages are not recoverable for a claim of lost expected profits that is overly speculative or uncertain. See, e.g. Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Mgmt., Inc., 877 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. 1994); George W. Garig Transfer v. Harris, 226 La. 117, 75 So.2d 28, 33 (1954); see also Transverse, L.L.C. v. Iowa Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 617 F. App'x 272, 278 (5th Cir. 2015) ("Lost profit damages may not be based on evidence that is speculative, uncertain, contingent, or hypothetical.")

Rather, "[f]or both their tort and their contract claims, to recover damages for lost profits, Plaintiffs must prove with reasonable certainty that [they] would have actually earned [future] profits but for Defendants' conduct."4 Thus, to survive summary judgment, Plaintiffs must put forth evidence sufficient to "establish [to a reasonable certainty] that they would have been successful if only LSR had not [ ] declined" to lease its site to them.5 As stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not met this burden.

In reaching this decision, the Court focuses primarily on Defendants' contentions regarding: (1) Plaintiffs' status as brand-new business entities, without well-established track records;6 (2) ECLT's questionable ability to finance the Project, which Matthew Goitia estimated to require $140 million for the first phase and an additional $65 million for the second phase;7 (3) the undisputed uncertainty of the market spread between the prices of crude oil in Canada and the United States Gulf Coast, and associated costs, both long-term and during the approximately eighteen to twenty months construction would require;8 (4) the narrowing of the spread by 2016 (when Plaintiffs would have been able to complete the Project);9 (5) Plaintiffs' roles as the first entities to develop a "true third-party terminal" of the type they envisioned; (6) the uncertainty of the approval by LSR's Board of Directors of a long-term lease agreement between LSR and Plaintiffs; and (7) the uncertainty of securing sufficient "take or pay" customer agreements with five-to-seven year terms.10 Although any one of these factors, if considered alone, arguably would be of little significance, the combination pushes the speculative and uncertain nature of the success, profitability, and value of Plaintiffs' venture far beyond a level upon which an award of damages for lost profits or lost business value11 may rest.