[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 8, 2007
No. 06-11257
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 01-07160 CV-JIC
HGI ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WETMORE PRINTING COMPANY,
a Texas corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 8, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In HGI Associates, Inc. v. Wetmore Printing Co., 427 F.3d 867 (11th Cir.
2005) (“HGI I”), this court affirmed the district court’s findings of breach of contract
and an award of damages, but vacated the court’s denial of future lost profits and
remanded for a determination of the amount of future lost profits warranted. Id. at
879-881. On remand, the district court issued its Supplemental Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, which ruled in favor of Wetmore Printing Company
(“Wetmore”) by denying HGI the award of any additional future lost profits. (R.7-
258 at 4-5). HGI again appeals.
We find no reversible error. This court stated in HGI I that to award lost
profits, the district court must “determine, to a reasonable certainty, what profits HGI
would have made from reselling the software kits Wetmore agreed to provide in the
contracts.” Id. at 881. HGI’s principal witness on this subject was Ronald Swartz,
then-President of HGI. Swartz’s testimony presented no evidence of sales by other
resellers and no concrete evidence of demand for the unsold software from resellers,
customers, or others. (R.9-182 at 84-88.) In this case, there is no evidence from
which the district court could determine to a reasonable certainty the amount of the
lost profits at issue.
AFFIRMED.
2