Racusin

MEMORANDUM **

In this diversity action, we review de novo the district court’s proper application of Nevada contract law in deciding whether to award damages or specific performance.

Michael Racusin contends that it was error for the district court to award specific performance when he requested only money damages. We agree. Racusin neither pled nor proved the facts or elements necessary for the court to apply the remedy of specific performance. 2 Without such proof, the court could not grant specific performance.

The proper measure of damages is the plaintiff’s “expectation interest as measured by ... the loss in the value to him of the other party’s performance.” 3 The jury indicated that the amount of compensation should be “stock in Leroy’s ... in an amount equal to 4.5% of $45,000,000 and $150,000 in cash.” In other words, it awarded Racusin $2,025 million worth of *718 stock. The district court was correct in concluding that this judgment would have delivered 337,500 shares of stock to Racusin — that is, $2.025 million at $6 a share (the amount used in the final evaluation on which the contract was based). But because Racusin’s prayer was for damages, not stock, the…