Peterbilt of Fargo, Inc. v. Red River Trucking, LLC
2015 ND 140
| N.D. | 2015Background
- In Nov 2010 Red River Trucking's truck (PT 2) was salvaged after an accident; Red River kept it and contracted with Peterbilt (Jan 2011) to repair it for an estimated $37,505.65, payment due on completion.
- Peterbilt performed repairs through Mar 23, 2011, totaling $31,346.65, then stopped work over payment concerns and demanded partial payment or other arrangements before continuing.
- Peterbilt sued asserting a repairman’s lien for the value of completed repairs; Red River counterclaimed for Peterbilt’s breach of the repair contract (failure to finish by May 1, 2011) and sought lost profits.
- The district court found Peterbilt had a valid repairman’s lien and awarded Peterbilt the repair value, but also found Peterbilt breached the repair contract; it held Red River failed to mitigate damages and awarded only $390.66 in contract damages (offset against Peterbilt’s lien).
- Peterbilt later submitted costs for completing the repairs, and the court entered an amended judgment increasing Peterbilt’s recovery; Red River timely appealed from the amended judgment; the truck was sold at sheriff’s sale after the appeal was filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Peterbilt: appeal untimely because not filed within 60 days of April 30 judgment | Red River: appealed from May 13 amended judgment within 60 days of its entry | Appeal timely — Peterbilt’s May 9 submission was treated as a timely Rule 59 motion; appeal period ran from amended judgment entry/notice |
| Mootness due to sheriff’s sale | Peterbilt: sale moots the appeal because Red River didn’t obtain a stay | Red River: appeal challenges damages calculation/mitigation, not the sale or lien validity | Not moot — sale did not prevent meaningful appellate relief on mitigation/damages claims |
| Mitigation of damages | Peterbilt: Red River failed to mitigate after breach (could have paid for completed work or repaired elsewhere) | Red River: refusal to deal with breaching repairer was reasonable; Peterbilt bore burden to prove failure to mitigate | Court’s finding that Red River failed to mitigate (sold chassis and did not use proceeds; declined available repair options) was not clearly erroneous; mitigation failure limits damages to May–July 2011 |
| Calculation of lost profits | Peterbilt: (implicit) district court’s method reasonable | Red River: court used single-year maintenance figure instead of 2011–2013 average, understating lost profits | District court’s lost-profits computation was within the evidentiary range and not clearly erroneous; award of $390.66 affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 657 N.W.2d 261 (N.D. 2003) (appeal dismissed when issues become moot due to events before decision)
- In re Estate of Shubert, 839 N.W.2d 811 (N.D. 2013) (failure to obtain stay pending appeal can moot conveyance issues)
- Keller v. Bolding, 678 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 2004) (clearly erroneous standard for findings of fact on damages)
- Coughlin Constr. Co. v. Nu-Tec Indus., Inc., 755 N.W.2d 867 (N.D. 2008) (duty to mitigate damages; reasonable exertion or trifling expense standard)
- Hanson v. Boeder, 727 N.W.2d 280 (N.D. 2007) (mitigation principles and burden to minimize damages)