Link America LLC v. InfoVista Corporation et al

Filing 141

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered denying 137 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. (Zierk, Marsha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-11177-RGS
LINK AMERICA LLC
v.
INFOVISTA CORPORATION et al.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
OR TO ALTER AND AMEND JUDGMENT
October 22, 2018
STEARNS, D.J.
On August 24, 2018, the fifth day of trial in this matter, the jury
returned a verdict largely in favor of plaintiff Link America LLC on its claims
against InfoVista Corporation (Ipanema).

The jury, however, awarded

damages in a sum well below that requested by Link America. InfoVista
now moves under Rule 50(a) for judgment as a matter of law.
A Rule 50(a) motion will be granted only where “after having examined
the evidence as well as all permissible inferences drawn therefrom in the
light most favorable to non-movant, the court finds that a reasonable jury
could not render a verdict in that party’s favor.” Irvine v. Murad Research
Labs., Inc., 194 F.3d 313, 316 (1st Cir. 1999). “We ‘examine the evidence

and the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant,’ and in doing so we do ‘not consider credibility
of witnesses, resolve conflicts in testimony, or evaluate the weight of the
evidence.’” Wagenmann v. Adams, 829 F.2d 196, 200 (1st Cir. 1987).
With respect to the Rule 50(a) motion, InfoVista’s principal claim is
that Link America failed to prove causation, more specifically that “[p]laintiff
offered no competent evidence that AT&T would have purchased from [Link
America] if [InfoVista] had not taken [wrongful] actions.” Defs.’ Mem. at 3.
The objection is one of factual sufficiency only (there is no alleged error in
the court’s instructions to the jury on the issue of causation). The court can
summarily dispose of InfoVista’s argument. It is clear from the verdict slip
and the damages award that the jury made no award of lost future profits.
Rather the sum awarded exactly mirrors Link America’s request to be
compensated for the expenses it incurred preparing to perform the AT&T
contract that never materialized. 1
Andres Ruzo, the Chairman and CEO of Link America, testified that
Link America’s out-of-pocket expenses in anticipation of the AT&T contract
amounted to $1,100,000. The jury awarded Link America $1,100,000.
InfoVista’s claim that Link America could not have recovered these out-ofpocket expenses “as a matter of law,” Defs.’ Mem. at 6, is simply incorrect.
Whether Link America would have incurred these expenses with or without
the prospect of being awarded the AT&T contract was a matter of fact for the
jury to resolve.
2
1

InfoVista’s second complaint concerns the judgment.

It contends

that the court mistakenly used the Massachusetts 12 percent interest rate
(that by statute applies to breaches of contract) in calculating prejudgment
interest instead of the Texas rate of 5 percent rate (that applies to torts).
The parties agree that Massachusetts law applies to Link America’s breach of
contract claims. The only issue, therefore, is whether the jury’s award of
out-of-pocket expenses sounds in contract or in tort or in both.

In its

instructions to the jury, the court summarized Link America’s three claims
as follows.
This case concerns three claims brought by Link America against
the defendant InfoVista: (1) alleged breaches of the Managed
Service Agreement that Link America entered with Ipanema in
2012, an Agreement that was adopted by InfoVista when it
acquired Ipanema in 2015 – more specifically (a) a failure by
InfoVista to honor a promised 46 percent discount on wholesale
purchases of Ipanema products for resale to Link America’s
customers, and (b) InfoVista’s unauthorized disclosure of
information that Link America deemed confidential. Link
America also alleges two claims that arise outside of and are not
governed by the MSA: (1) an alleged tortious interference with
a contractual relationship that Link America enjoyed with AT&T,
as well as a future contract that Link America sought to secure
from AT&T to perform work on the State of Texas project; and
(2) the alleged improper disclosure of confidential pricing
information that Link America had shared with InfoVista during
their business dealings.

3

In answering the verdict slip special questions the jury found for Link
America on all three claims: a breach of contract, tortious interference with
Link America’s existing (not prospective) contract with AT&T, and the
misappropriation (by disclosure) of confidential business information,
namely Link America’s pricing schedules. All three causes of action were
premised on, among other things, the wrongful disclosure of confidential
information. As to damages, the jury was not required to assign the sum
awarded to any one or more of the three actions, but was permitted to return
a general award of compensatory damages. Consequently, the most likely
inference, and the one most indulgent to Link America as the nonmoving
party, is that the jury intended the out-of-pocket expenses award as
compensation for all three wrongs.
Because the ultimate choice of the interest rate to be applied lies within
the discretion of the court (as the parties acknowledge, see Defs.’ Mem. at 15,
Pl.’s Mem. at 8), I will assign the damages award to the breach of contract
claim and leave the judgment unaltered.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for judgment as a matter of law
or in the alternative to alter or amend the judgment is DENIED.
4

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5