Phong Trinh v. Fatha Elmi and Med Solutions Pharmacy, Inc.
01-14-00204-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 10, 2015Background
- Trinh appeals a Houston First Court of Appeals decision on a breach of contract suit against Elmi and Med Solutions Pharmacy.
- Jury found an enforceable agreement entitling Trinh to a 40% ownership interest and breach by Appellees.
- Trial court awarded zero damages and zero attorney’s fees despite the jury’s liability finding.
- Appellate court harmonized the verdict by suggesting Trinh had not performed his obligations, which would excuse damages, but no such argument was preserved.
- Trinh argues damages and fees should be awarded based on uncontroverted damages testimony and evidence of the Pharmacy’s profitability and value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court harmonize a verdict by looking beyond the record? | Trinh | Elmi/Med Solutions | No; cannot harmonize when not preserved and evidence not adduced to support it. |
| May the jury award no damages where uncontroverted expert damages testimony exists? | Trinh | Elmi/Med Solutions | No; uncontroverted expert damages must be awarded within evidence range. |
| Was the damages issue preserved for appeal and properly submitted? | Trinh | Elmi/Med Solutions | No; Appellees did not plead or present breach/conditions precedent; issue not preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (juries must award damages within proven range when uncontroverted evidence exists)
- Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2004) (remarks on harmonizing verdicts and propriety of damage awards)
- Keilman v. First State Bank, 851 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993) (preservation and evidentiary limits for contract damages)
- Callejo v. Brazos Elec. Power Coop., 755 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. 1988) (amounts awarded must reflect evidence; misalignment reversible)
- Cooper v. Lyon Financial Services, Inc., 65 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (damages not supported by evidence may be reversed)
- Hill v. Clayton, 827 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992) (uncontroverted medical expenses reversed)