Advanced Research Systems, Inc. v. Coldedge Tech. ( 2016 )

J-A12004-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ADVANCED RESEARCH SYSTEMS, INC., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
COLDEDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
TERRENCE RUFER, AJAY KHATRI, JEFF
ROMIG AND ERIC LECHER,
Appellants No. 2317 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 2015-02417
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 14, 2016
Advanced Research Systems, Inc. (ARS) commenced this action in
November 2008, alleging a violation of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade
Secrets Act, 12 Pa.C.S. §§ 5301-08, as well as numerous related claims.
Following a bifurcated, non-jury trial, judgment was entered on January 25,
2013, in favor of ARS. Coldedge Technologies, Inc., Terrence Rufer, Ajay
Khatri, Jeff Romig, and Eric Lecher appealed. This Court vacated the
judgment entered and remanded for clarification of the trial court’s damages
award. Advanced Research Sys., Inc. v. Coldedge Techs., Inc., 100
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A12004-16
A.3d 314 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unpublished memorandum). We affirmed the
trial court in all other respects. Id. On remand, the trial court awarded ARS
damages totaling $1,304,330.90, and issued a comprehensive opinion
explaining its award.1 Judgment was again entered.2 Appellants timely
appealed. We affirm.
Appellants raise the following issues:
[1.] Whether the trial court abused its discretion on remand by
simply converting what had been an unsupported award of
actual damages to an award of exemplary damages, where the
award of compensatory damages is not supported by the
record[; and]
[2.] Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in
calculating damages on remand by changing its rationale in
support of the award of $500,000.00 from “damages suffered by
ARS as a result of [Appellants’] unlawful misappropriation of
ARS’s customer list and drawings in connection with [a] cause of
action proven by ARS against [Appellants],” after this Court
previously observed that “[t]he record does not exhibit an
obvious ‘actual loss’ to ARS” to now justifying the same
$500,000.00 award as “exemplary damages for [Appellants’]
willful and malicious conduct” when the court entered no such
finding at the conclusion of trial[.]
____________________________________________
1
The trial court further awarded ARS $16,000.00 for breach of contract.
This award was directed against Terrence Rufer individually.
2
In fact, Appellants sought to appeal from the trial court’s order entered
June 30, 2015, which set forth the modified damages awarded to ARS. No
judgment had yet been entered when Appellants filed their notice of appeal.
Nevertheless, judgment was entered thereafter on June 22, 2016, thus
perfecting Appellants’ appeal. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to resolve
this appeal. See Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. Tedco Constr. Corp., 657
A.2d 511, 514-15 (Pa. Super. 1995); see also Pa.R.A.P. 905(a).
-2-
J-A12004-16
Appellants’ Brief at 5. Nevertheless, Appellants concede that the sole issue
before the Court is narrow. Id. at 11. According to Appellants, the trial
court abused its discretion when it converted an unsupported award for
compensatory damages into an award of exemplary damages. Id.
When reviewing an award of damages, we are mindful that:
The determination of damages is a factual question to be
decided by the fact-finder. The fact-finder must assess the
testimony, by weighing the evidence and determining its
credibility, and by accepting or rejecting the estimates of the
damages given by the witnesses.
Although the fact-finder may not render a verdict based on sheer
conjecture or guesswork, it may use a measure of speculation in
estimating damages. The fact-finder may make a just and
reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant data, and
in such circumstances may act on probable, inferential, as well
as direct and positive proof.
J.J. DeLuca Co., Inc. v. Toll Naval Assocs., 56 A.3d 402, 417-18 (Pa.
Super. 2012) (quoting Liss & Marion, P.C. v. Recordex Acquisition
Corp., 937 A.2d 503, 514 (Pa. Super. 2007), affirmed, 983 A.2d 652 (Pa.
2009)). Accordingly, “[w]e review a challenge to the calculation of damages
for an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 417.
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable
Michele A. Varricchio of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, dated
July 2, 2015. We conclude that Judge Varricchio’s opinion is dispositive of
the issue presented in this appeal. In particular, we note the trial court’s
explanation of its award of exemplary damages. See Trial Court Opinion,
-3-
J-A12004-16
07/02/2015, at 15-19. In our view, Appellants’ intentional destruction of
evidence provides ample support for the court’s determination that
Appellants’ misappropriation was willful and malicious. See id.; see also 12
Pa.C.S. §§ 5304(b). Accordingly, we discern no abuse of the court’s
discretion and adopt its opinion as our own for purposes of further appellate
review.
Judgment affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/14/2016
-4-