WWP, INC. v. Wounded Warriors Family Support, Inc.
628 F.3d 1032
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- WWP and WWFS are two distinct Nebraska charities aiding injured veterans and families; WWP alleges WWFS caused donor confusion via a similar website.
- WWFS launched woundedwarriors.org; WWP contends donations were misdirected to WWFS and cashed.
- WWP asserted NDTPA, NCPA, and unjust enrichment claims; district court issued a preliminary injunction against WWFS blocking the website.
- At trial, jury awarded WWP damages for NCPA ($425,000) and unjust enrichment ($1,267,719); district court did not rule on NDTPA at that time.
- District court later granted in part post-trial relief: judgment on NDTPA claim and conversion of the injunction to a permanent injunction.
- WWFS appeals asserting multiple trial and evidentiary errors; the panel dismisses moot pretrial injunction appeal and affirms the remainder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the preliminary injunction appeal moot? | WWFS argues the appeal remains relevant for review of related issues. | WWP contends mootness since permanent injunction issued. | Moot; preliminary injunction appeal dismissed. |
| Did the district court abuse discovery rulings on production of donor records? | WWFS sought broad donor information relevant to damages. | WWP's production was overbroad and burdensome; not all records needed. | No abuse; district court did not require dump of all donation records. |
| Was Kirchner's expert testimony properly admitted under Rule 702/Daubert? | Kirchner's methodology and calculations were reliable and helpful. | Kirchner's testimony relied on simple math and speculative links. | Testimony admissible; district court did not abuse its discretion. |
| Did the district court err in admitting evidence of the preliminary injunction during trial? | Evidence of injunction was irrelevant and prejudicial. | Evidence supported damages theory; proper to show ongoing impact. | Admissible but with cautionary instruction; no reversal. |
| Did there exist sufficient evidence to support judgment on NCPA and unjust enrichment and the amount of damages? | WWFS profited from misdirected donations; damages supported by expert. | Insufficient proof of knowingly kept misdirected funds; damages overstated. | Yes; the record supports the verdicts and damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999) (preliminary injunctions typically merge into permanent injunctions)
- Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 1997) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of motion to compel)
- McGowan v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 794 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1986) (limits on broad, unduly burdensome discovery requests)
- Shelton v. Kennedy Funding, Inc., 622 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2010) (Rule 103(a) preservation of objections and appellate review)
- In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 514 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2008) (expert testimony admissibility in complex matters)
- Ty, Inc. v. Jones Group, Inc., 237 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2001) (damages for intangible harms; difficulties do not defeat relief)
- Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6 (2d Cir. 1992) (difficulties in calculating damages for reputational harm)