[¶ 1] Red River Trucking, LLC, appeals from an amended judgment determining Peterbilt of Fargo, Inc., had a valid repairman’s lien for completed repairs to a truck owned by Red River Trucking, Pet-erbilt breached a contract with Red River Trucking to repair the truck, and Red River Trucking was entitled to $390.66 in damages for Peterbilt’s breach of the repair contract. We conclude Red River Trucking’s appeal from the amended judgment is timely and issues about dаmages for breach of the repair contract are not moot because of the subsequent sheriffs sale of the truck. We also conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damages and in awarding Red River Trucking $390.66 in damages for Peter-bilt’s breach of the repair contract. We affirm.
I
[¶ 2] Patrick Larkin formed Red River Trucking in 1996 to engage in the commercial hauling of gravel and aggregate, and he оwned three trucks for his business, the PT 2, the PT.3, and the PT 4. In November 2010, the PT 2 (“thé truck”) sustained considerable damage in an accident and was taken to Peterbilt for repairs. At the time of the accident, the truck was worth about $22,500. Red River Trucking’s insurance company determined the damage to the truck exceeded its value and paid Red River Trucking and a bank lienholder $22,500 for the truck in February 2011. Red River Trucking decided to keep the truck with a salvaged title аnd to have it repaired. Red River Trucking and Peter-bilt executed a “repair order worksheet” in January 2011 in which Peterbilt agreed to repair the truck for an estimated cost of $37,505.65 and Red River Trucking agreed to pay Peterbilt “cash” for the repairs. The parties agree the contract required the repairs to be completed by May 1, 2011, and the term “cash” meant payment was due after the repairs were complеted.
[¶ 3] According to Peterbilt, it became concerned about Red River Trucking’s ability to pay for the repairs because of the relative value of the truck to the to tal, cost of the repairs and because Red River Trucking had failed to pay Allstate Peter-bilt Group, a business affiliated with Peter-bilt, for a rented replacement truck. Pet-
[¶ 4] Peterbilt sued Red River Trucking, claiming a repairman’s lien. in the amount of $31,346.65 for the completed repairs. Red River Trucking answered, denying Peterbilt had a valid repairman’s lien. Red River Trucking also counterclaimed, alleging Peterbilt breached the repair contract by not completing the repairs by May 1, 2011, and seeking dam-’ ages for lost profits after that date. Pet-erbilt replied to the counterclaim, alleging Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damages.
[¶ 5] After a bench trial, the district court ruled Peterbilt had a valid repairman’s hen for the completed repairs on the truck and was entitled to $31,346.65 for the reasonable value of those repairs. The court ruled Peterbilt was entitled to foreclose its repairman’s lien by selling the truck and applying proceeds of the sale to offset the value of the repairs. The court also concluded Peterbilt breached the parties’ repair contract when the truck was not repaired by May 1, 2011, and Red River Trucking thereafter failed to mitigate its damages for the breach. The court said Larkin decided not to take the truck to another repair shop because he was “fed up” and he acknowledged he did nothing to mitigate his damages because he expected the truck to be fixed. The court explained Larkin additionally chose not to spend $6,000 to have another truck, the PT 3 (“other truck”), repaired and made a business decision to let that truck sit idle until February 2013. The court sаid that by not using available proceeds from a July 2011 sale of equipment to repair either truck, Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damages in July 2011. The court rejected Red River Trucking’s claim for $201,564 in lost profits from 2011 through 2013 and awarded Red River Trucking $390.66 for two months of lost profits resulting from Peterbilt’s breach of contract.
[¶ 6] Red River Trucking moved to amend the district court’s decision, arguing the court erroneously determined Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damages and incorrectly calculated damages at $390.66 instead of $39,042.63. The court denied Red River Trucking’s motion to amend, and a notice of entry of judgment was served on Red River Trucking on April 30, 2014. That judgment awarded Peterbilt $31,346.65 for its repairman’s lien and awarded Red River Trucking $390.66 as an offset against the amount awarded to Peterbilt. '
[¶ 7] On May 9, 2014, Peterbilt submitted a proposed amended judgment stating it had completed repairs on the truck and the final cost tо repair the truck was $34,128.97. On May 13, 2014, the district court entered an amended judgment including the cost to complete the repairs on the truck and increasing the amount of Peterbilt’s total judgment, plus costs, against Red River Trucking to $34,842.21.
[¶ 8] The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const, art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. This Court hаs jurisdiction over an appeal from a judgment under N.D. Const, art. VI, §§ 2 and 6, and N.D.C.C. § 28-27-01. Peterbilt argues, however, that Red River Trucking’s appeal is not timely and is moot, and we initially consider those arguments.
II
A
[¶ 9] Peterbilt argues Red River Trucking’s appeal is not timely under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a), because it was not filed within 60 days of notice of entry of the April 30, 2014, judgment. Peterbilt claims the May 13, 2014, amended judgment did not substantively change the initial judgment and Red River Trucking’s failure to timely appeal from the initial ■ judgment requires dismissal of the appeal.
[¶ 10] When Red River Trucking filed its notice of appeal on July 7, 2014, N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(1) required a notice of appeal to be filed with the clerk of the district court 1 within 60 days from service of notice of entry of the judgment or order being appealed. Under N.D.R.App. 4(a)(3)(A)(iv), the full time for appeal runs from service of notice of entry of an order disposing of a timely motion to alter or amend a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59.
[¶ 11] Notice of entry of the initial judgment was served on Red River Trucking on April 30, 2014. On May 9, 2014, Peterbilt submitted to the district court a proposed amended judgment reflecting it had completed repairs on the truck and the final cost to repair the truck was $34,128.97. On May 13, 2014, the court entered an amended judgment including the costs for the completed repairs, and Peterbilt filed its notice of appeal within 60 days of the May 14, 2014, notice of entry оf the amended judgment. We conclude Pet-erbilt’s request to amend the judgment to reflect the completed repair costs was a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59, and Red River Trucking’s full time for appeal ran from service of notice of entry of the amended judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3)(A)(iv). . We therefore conclude Red River Trucking’s appeal from the May 13, 2014, amended judgment is timely.
B
[¶ 12] Peterbilt argues Red River Trucking’s appeаl is moot because Red River Trucking did not seek a stay of the sheriffs sale of the truck pending appeal.
[¶ 13] “We will dismiss an appeal if the issues become moot and no actual controversy is left to be decided.”
Simpson v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.,
HI
[¶ 15] Red River Trucking argues the district court erroneously found Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damages by not submitting to Peterbilt’s demands for early payment after Péterbilt had breached the parties’ repair contract.
[¶ 16] “A trial court’s determination of the amount of damages caused by a breach of contract is a finding of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.”
Keller v. Bolding,
[¶ 17] Section 32-03-09, N.D.C.C., generally describes the measure of damages for breach of a contract:
For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages, except when otherwise expressly provided by the laws of this state, is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby or which in' the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom. No damages can be recovered for a breach of contract if they are not clearly ascertainable in both their nature and origin.
[¶ 18] In breach of contract actions, we have said, “A person injured by the wrongful acts of anоther has a duty to mitigate or minimize the damages 'and must ‘protect himself if he can do so with reasonable exertion or at trifling expense, and can recover from the delinquent party only such damages as he could not, with reasonable effort, have avoided.’ ”
Coughlin Constr. Co., Inc. v. Nu-Tec Indus., Inc.,
A
[¶ 19] Red River Trucking initially argues Peterbilt had the burden of proving Red River Trucking did not fulfill its duty to mitigate its damages and its refusal as a nonbreaching party to deal with the breaching party, Peterbilt, is presumed reasonable and does not constitute a failure to mitigate. Red River Trucking claims the district court failed to squarely place the burden on Peterbilt to establish Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damages. Red River Trucking also claims “this Court should conclude that it is presumptively reasonable for the nonbreach-ing party to refuse to deal with the breaching party, and the nonbreaching party’s refusal to do so cannot ... support a finding that it failed to mitigate its damages.”
[¶ 20] The pаrties’ pleadings generally framed issues about damages for breach of contract and mitigation of damages. During trial proceedings and in its motion to amend the findings of fact and order for judgment, however, Red River Trucking did not specifically argue that Peterbilt had the burden of proving Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damages or that a nonbreaching party’s refusal to deal with a breaching party is presumed reasonable. Rather, in its pretrial statement, Red River Trucking argued any claimed anticipatory repudiation of the contract by Red River Trucking was not available to Peterbilt as a defense to Red River Trucking’s breach of contract claim because Pet-erbilt’s repair of the truck was a condition precedent to Red River Trucking’s payment for repairs. Red River Trucking claimed it never made a positive statement to Peterbilt that Red River Trucking would not perform under the contract. In Red River Trucking’s motion to amend the findings of fact and order for judgment, Red River Trucking argued the district court erred in concluding Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damages by failing to pay for completed repairs before being contractually required to pay and after Peterbilt had repudiated the original contract.
[¶ 21] In
Coughlin Constr.,
[¶ 22] Red River Trucking did not explicitly raise issues at any point in the district court proceedings about the burden of proving a failure to mitigate or the existence of a presumption that, a non-breaching party’s failure to deal with a breaching party is reasonable. We reject Red River Trucking’s attempt to make those аrguments for the first time on appeal, and we decline to address them.
B
[¶ 28] Red' River Trucking argues there was insufficient evidence to show it failed to mitigate its damages. Red River Trucking argues it did not act unreasonably in refusing to accede to Pet-erbilt’s demands to pay for the repairs to the truck before completion and it did not fail to mitigate its damages by not repairing the other truck because the $6,000 cost for repairing that truck was not a trifling expense.
[¶ 24] The district court decided Peter-bilt breached the repair contract when the repairs on the truck were not completed by May 1, 2011, and Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damages in July 2011:
Larkin testified that if he needed to pay for half of the repairs, he could have gotten the money, and further, the reason he did not pay was because the truck was not finished. Larkin decided not to take the truck somewhere else because he was “fed up.”
Larkin specifically acknowledged that he did nothing to mitigate his damages because he expected the truck to be fixed. In July, 2011, Red River sold two chassis for approximately $41,000.00. Larkin acknowledged that this money could have covered the repairs to [the truck]. In addition, the cost of repairing [the other truck] was approximately $6,000.00, and Larkin chose not to have [the other truck] repaired until February, 2013, but instead made a “business decision” to let [the other truck] sit idle. The Court hereby finds that when Lar-kin sold, two chassis for approximately $41,000.00 in July, 2011, and decided not to use that money to fix either [truck], that he failed to mitigate any damages resulting from Peterbilt’s breach. Therefore, the proper measure of damages that Red River can claim as a result of Peterbilt’s breach is limited to the time between May, 2011, the date of the brеach, and July, 2011, when Red River failed to mitigate its damages.
[¶ 25] The district court explicitly found Peterbilt breached the repair contract when the repairs to the truck were not completed by May 1, 2011, and Red River Trucking was damaged because the truck was not operational on that date. The court also found Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damages in July 2011, because at that time, future lost profits could have been avoided by rеasonable efforts under the existing circumstances. After Peterbilt breached the contract to repair the truck, Peterbilt offered Red River Trucking a choice either to pay for the completed repairs, which were subject to a repairman’s lien, and take the truck elsewhere for repairs, or to pay for about half the completed repairs and Peterbilt would finish the repairs to the truck. When Peterbilt breached the contract by not completing the repairs to the truck by May 1, 2011, the amount of the completed repairs was not an insubstantial amount, but Peterbilt nevertheless was entitled to a repairman’s lien for the completed repairs to the truck.
See
N.D.C.C. § 35-13-01 (authorizing repairman’s lien “for reasonable charges for work done and materials furnished, until the charges are paid”). Evidence in the record supports the dis
[¶ 26] Because we conclude the district court did not clearly err in determining Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damagеs in July 2011 by not taking the truck to another repair- shop after paying Peterbilt for the completed repairs on that truck, we do not address Red River Trucking’s argument about the court’s additional finding that Red River Trucking failed to mitigate its damages by not paying $6,000 to repair the other truck.
See Come Big or Stay Home, LLC v. EOG Resources Inc.,
IV
[¶ 27] Red River Trucking argues the district court erroneously calculated its lost profits by using a single year of maintenance costs for its trucks rather than an average of its maintenance costs from 2011 through 2013.
[¶ 28] A district court’s determination of the amount of a party’s damages is a question of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.
Keller,
[¶ 29] The- district court’s damage award used Red River Trucking’s calculation of profits of $64,894 for one truck in 2011, which was the year the court found Red River Trucking lost profits because the truck was not available for use. After deducting $40,000 for a driver’s salary and $23,136 for annual repairs and maintenance, the court found that Réd River Trucking had a profit of $1,758 in 2011. The court divided that profit by nine becаuse Red River Trucking operated its trucks for nine months of the year and calculated lost profits at $195.33 per’ month. The court then awarded Red River Trucking $390.66 for two months of lost profits in 2011.
[¶ 30] The district court’s calculation of Red River Trucking’s lost profits is -within the range of evidence presented at trial. We decline Red River Trucking’s invitation to reweigh that evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses for those lost profits. We are not left with a dеfinite and firm conviction the court made a mistake in calculating Red River Trucking’s lost profits, and we conclude the court’s findings are not clearly erroneous.
V
[¶ 31] We affirm the judgment.
Notes
. Rule 4, N.D.R.App.P., was amended effective October 1, 2014, to require an appealing party to file the notice of appeal with the clerk of the supreme court instead of the clerk of the district court.