Leisure Time Ent. v. Cal Vista

MEMORANDUM **

1. The district court did not err in admitting the expert testimony of David Kravis and Jeffrey Kinrich. Kravis was a twenty-year veteran of the adult film industry with “specialized knowledge” and experience. See United States v. HanJcey, 203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.2000). Kinrich merely applied basic accounting calculations to the estimates provided by Kravis.

2. The district court abused its discretion in awarding lost profit damages of $5,230,658.

We review a district court’s award of damages for an abuse of discretion. See Security Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999 , 1015 (9th Cir. 1997). An award of lost profit damages, such as the one here, will be upheld if it is supported by “substantial evidence.” See *567 Humetrix, Inc. v. Gemplus, 268 F.3d 910 , 919 (9th Cir.2001). Under California law “[n]o damages can be recovered for a breach of contract which are not clearly ascertainable in both their nature and origin.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3301 .

In awarding $5,230,658 in damages, the district court explicitly credited David Kravis’s estimate that each of the 252 Leisure Time Entertainment, Inc. (“LTE”) features would have generated $25,000 in revenue. 1…