Payne v. Baltazar et al
ORDER granting 15 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and that claim is dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on Payne's lost profits claims, 19 is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 8/10/2015. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DON EARL PAYNE
CASE NO: 3:14CV00213 BSM
ALVARO BALTAZAR et al.
Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on punitive damages [Doc. No. 15]
is granted. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on lost profits [Doc. No. 19]
Viewed in the light most favorable to Don Earl Payne, the non-moving party, the
material facts are as follows. Payne is the owner/operator of a tractor-trailer for which he is
responsible for all operating expenses. On February 21, 2013, an accident occurred between
Payne’s tractor-trailer and a truck driven by Alvaro Baltazar. At the time of the accident,
Payne was receiving payments for hauling TransOne’s trailer. TransOne deducted certain
expenses from Payne’s payments. Payne filed this lawsuit against defendants Baltazar,
Central Transport, Inc., and Central Transport, LLC, seeking damages, including punitive
and lost profits. Defendants move for summary judgment on Payne’s claims for punitive
damages and lost profits.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50 (1986). Once the moving party
demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, the non-moving party may not
rest upon the mere allegations or denials in his pleadings. Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336,
340 (8th Cir. 2011). Instead, the non-moving party must produce admissible evidence
demonstrating a genuine factual dispute that must be resolved at trial. Id. Importantly, when
considering a motion for summary judgment, all reasonable inferences must be drawn in a
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Holland v. Sam’s Club, 487 F.3d 641, 643 (8th
Cir. 2007). Additionally, the evidence is not weighed, and no credibility determinations are
made. Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 750 (8th Cir. 2008).
Summary judgment is granted on Payne’s punitive damages claim because he
concedes that the evidence does not support this claim. See Doc. No. 26.
Summary judgment is denied on Payne’s lost profits claim because there is sufficient
evidence in the record from which a jury could determine Payne’s lost profits without
speculation. Lost profits are recoverable as consequential damages. Spann v. Lovett & Co.,
389 S.W.3d 77, 91 (Ark. App. 2012). To recover lost profits a plaintiff must show profits
with reasonable certainty and not leave the jury to speculate. Ishie v. Kelley, 788 S.W.2d
225, 226 (Ark. 1990). An award of lost profits would be conjectural if the plaintiff provides
only gross rather than net amounts, and there is no basis from which a jury could reasonably
infer the approximate net earnings. Id. Income tax returns, however, may be sufficient to
assist a jury in determining net profits. See Carson v. Hercules Powder Co., 402 S.W.2d
640, 642 (Ark. 1966) (federal income tax returns alone were properly admitted to assist the
court in determining lost earnings). Defendants rely on Kelley in support of their contention
that Payne’s claim for lost profits is conjectural. This reliance is misplaced because, unlike
the plaintiff in Kelley, Payne has produced income tax returns that provide enough
information for a jury to determine whether he has indeed lost profits. See Ex. C, Doc. No.
19; Ex. D, Doc. No. 23; Carson, 402 S.W.2d at 642. Summary judgment is therefore
For these reasons, defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on Payne’s
punitive damages claim [Doc. No. 15] is granted and that claim is dismissed with prejudice.
Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on Payne’s lost profits claims [Doc. No.
19] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of August 2015.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?