IMI Marketing, L.L.C v. Macy's East, Inc.

Second Circuit

IMI Marketing, L.L.C v. Macy's East, Inc.

96 F. App'x 791

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 25, 2004

DocketDocket No. 03-7260

StatusPublished

This text of 96 F. App'x 791 (IMI Marketing, L.L.C v. Macy's East, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

IMI Marketing, L.L.C v. Macy's East, Inc., 96 F. App'x 791 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[792]*792SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, granting summary judgment for the defendant. This Court reviews de novo a district court’s granting of summary judgment. Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth, 337 F.3d 201, 206 (2d Cir. 2003).

Familiarity with the facts of this case is assumed. Briefly, this case turns on the interpretation of Clause 26 of the Service Agreement between the parties — specifically, whether the provision prohibits the plaintiff from recovering lost profits. The district court held that the contract barred the plaintiff from recovering such damages, and, in any event, the plaintiff’s estimate of lost profits was too speculative to be recoverable.

We find that the district court committed no error that would warrant reversal. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[792]*792SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, granting summary judgment for the defendant. This Court reviews de novo a district court’s granting of summary judgment. Anderson v. Rochester-Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth, 337 F.3d 201, 206 (2d Cir. 2003).

Familiarity with the facts of this case is assumed. Briefly, this case turns on the interpretation of Clause 26 of the Service Agreement between the parties — specifically, whether the provision prohibits the plaintiff from recovering lost profits. The district court held that the contract barred the plaintiff from recovering such damages, and, in any event, the plaintiff’s estimate of lost profits was too speculative to be recoverable.

We find that the district court committed no error that would warrant reversal. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imi-marketing-llc-v-macys-east-inc-ca2-2004.