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.

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

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