AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Plaintiffs, Sandra J. Vacca and Liquid Outpost Co., who were awarded a default judgment and damages against the Defendants, Inn & Spa at Loretto Corp.; Heritage Hotels and Resorts, Inc.; Edgar Lozoya; Jim Long; Loretto Hotel Investment, LLC; and Zia Santa Fe, LLC. The dispute arose from unspecified actions by the Defendants that led to the Plaintiffs seeking legal redress for damages incurred.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying their motion to set aside the default judgment and contended that the damages awarded were not supported by substantial evidence, specifically criticizing the Plaintiffs' reliance on rough estimates of lost profit.
• Plaintiffs: Successfully argued for the default judgment and presented evidence to support their claim for damages, including testimony and summaries of monthly gross receipts, which the district court found credible.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Defendants’ motion to set aside the default judgment.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s calculation of damages.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of default judgment and the award of damages in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

• IVES, Judge (YOHALEM, J., and BACA, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Ives with Judges Yohalem and Baca concurring, affirmed the district court's decisions based on several key considerations:
  The Defendants failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying their motion to set aside the default judgment. The Defendants did not provide sufficient evidence or argument to challenge the procedural fairness or correctness of the district court's decision (paras 1-2).
  The Court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's calculation of damages. Despite the Defendants' claims that the Plaintiffs relied on rough estimates, the Court highlighted that damages need not be calculated with mathematical certainty. The Plaintiffs provided credible testimony and evidence that allowed for a reasonable ascertainment of damages (paras 3-6).
  The Defendants' challenge to the nature of the damages awarded (compensatory vs. special damages) was dismissed due to a lack of supporting authority and failure to demonstrate that the district court made an error in its designation of the damages as compensatory (paras 7-8).
  The Court rejected the Defendants' assertion that the Plaintiffs were required to disprove the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their losses. The Court noted that the burden of proof for damages does not extend to disproving potential reductions in those damages due to external factors not evidenced in the case (para 10).
  In conclusion, the Court of Appeals upheld the district court's judgment due to the Defendants' inability to substantiate their claims of error and the presence of credible evidence supporting the Plaintiffs' claims for damages.