CALGON CARBON CORP v. ADA-ES, INC., No. 2:2008cv01355 - Document 175 (W.D. Pa. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 103 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Howard W. Pifer, III, as to Dr. Pifer's expert testimony on damages for ADA's unjust enrichment claim. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster on 7/27/10. (map)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CALGON CARBON CORP v. ADA-ES, INC. Doc. 175 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CALGON CARBON CORP., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. ADA-ES, INC. , Defendant. Civil Action No. 08-1355 BENCH MEMORANDUM On May 17, 2010, Calgon moved to exclude certain expert testimony by Dr. Howard W. Pifer, III, pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) [doc. nos. 103 & 104]. On July 15, 2010, the court held a Daubert hearing and took advisement under the parties' contentions regarding Dr. Pifer's testimony on damages for ADA's unjust enrichment claim. Dr. Pifer opined, in his original report, that the damages for ADA's unjust enrichment claim should be set at 15% of Calgon's PAC sales to Midwest, which is the amount that ADA claims it is entitled to in its breach of contract claim. Daubert hearing, Dr. pifer opined that the amount During the of unjust enrichment damages is again 15% of Calgon's PAC sales to Midwest, But at that time, he opined that the 15% represents the midpoint between what he deemed a reasonable range of commissions using other contract commission rates for sales of similar products. Dr. Pifer did not base either of these opinions on any quantification of what portion of the value of Calgon's contract with Midwest is attributable to ADA's marketing efforts. Dockets.Justia.com On July 19, 2010, the court orally granted Calgon's motion to exclude Dr. Pifer's opinions regarding damages for ADA's unjust enrichment claim. The court's decision was based on the following reasons. In Pennsylvania, enrichment Indeed, claim cannot the amount of damages be based a contractual provision. an unjust enrichment claim presupposes that there is no contract damages in existence. for unjust The law is clear that enrichment is services rendered to the defendant. of on for an unj ust damages in an unj ust the the reasonable measure of value of the Restated, the accepted measure enrichment claim is the gain to the defendant, not the loss to the plaintiff. It is clear that Dr. Pifer's opinions relied solely on the MOU commission rate that ADA contends it lost and commission rates in damages. the jury. similar contracts as the value of unjust enrichment This is contrary to the law and would not be helpful to Furthermore, Dr. Pifer failed to opine as to Calgon's gain from ADA's marketing efforts, which is the legal basis for the measure of unjust enrichment damages in this case. As such, Dr. Pifer could provide no testimony that would be helpful to the jury in assessing the amount of damages to be awarded to ADA were it to succeed on its unjust enrichment claim. 2 For these reasons, the court granted Calgon's motion to exclude Dr. Pifer's expert testimony on damages for ADA's unjust ï½ ï¼¸ï½´ï½¾ï½¤ï¼ºï¼ enrichment claim. Julv 27, 2010 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
