The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D sponsors the annual Indianapolis 500 race. In 2015 P became a licensee of Maxim, a men's magazine. Karma has hosted Maxim-branded entertainment at large sporting events, including a party prior to the 2016 Super Bowl in San Francisco. P began negotiations with D to host a Maxim-branded event at that year's 100th running of the race. An agreement was reached in March 2016 agreement. D promised to provide 'marketing support via [its] social channels and ... dedicated e-mail to [its] database.' P pledged to promote race weekend activities with a 'banner ad on Maxim.com (minimum 1 million impressions).' P also promised to provide 'marketing support via Maxim social channels for [the Indy 500] music events (Carb Day, Legend's Day, and Indy 500 Snake Pit).' D sent four promotional e-mails in May 2016 promoting the Maxim party. P never ran the promised banner advertisement on Maxim.com. Nor did it use Maxim's social media channels to promote race weekend events. P spent $635,855.71 on the event but generated only $215,690.39 in revenue. While 1,787 guests attended the party, P sold just 92 full-price tickets. Some of the remaining guests bought reduced-price tickets, but most received complimentary admission. P sued D for breach of contract, alleging that it failed to promote the Maxim party as agreed under the terms of the contract. P sought $817,500 in damages. D filed a counterclaim alleging that P failed to place the promised banner advertisement on Maxim's website or provide marketing support on Maxim's social media channels. D moved for summary judgment. P claimed that D officials gave assurances that its e-mails would generate the sale of at least 1,500 tickets. The judge held that those comments, without more, could not establish how many additional ticket sales an e-mail to its entire database would have generated. Because P had no nonspeculative evidence of damages, the judge entered summary judgment for D. D's counterclaim proceeded to trial, and the jury found P liable and awarded $75,000 in damages. P moved for judgment as a matter of law, and alternatively for a new trial, under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judge denied both motions and entered judgment on the jury's verdict. P appealed

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.