Facilities Cost Management Group, LLC v. Nebraska City Public Schools

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Facilities Cost Management Group, LLC v. Nebraska City Public Schools

Case Number
S-16-1193
Call Date
October 31, 2017
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Douglas
Case Location
Lincoln
Case Summary

S-16-1193 Facilities Cost Management Group, LLC (Appellant) v. Otoe County School District 66-0111 a/k/a Nebraska City Public Schools

District Court for Douglas County, Judge J. Michael Coffey

Attorneys: John A. Svoboda and Adam J. Wachal (Gross & Welch, P.C., L.L.O.) (Appellant) --- Larry E. Welch, Jr., Damien J. Wright, and Larry E. Welch, Sr., (Welch Law Firm, P.C.)

Civil: Breach of contract

Proceedings below: Following a jury trial, a verdict was entered in favor of Appellee.  Appellant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was then denied by the district court.

Issues: The district court erred in 1) overruling Appellant’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment as to the Appellee’s defenses of material misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation and thereby arguing there was a guaranteed maximum price for the projects, 2) overruling Appellant’s Motion in Limine to prevent Appellee from offering any evidence of a material misrepresentation or fraudulent misrepresentation prior to trial to support the Appellee’s claim there was a guaranteed maximum price for the projects, 3) allowing Appellee to introduce and argue evidence of claimed misrepresentations which allegedly occurred after the contract was signed to avoid payment under the contract, 4) instructing the jury on Appellee’s defenses because the evidence established that Appellee added a minimum of Two Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,900,000.00) of additions to the project after it began, and therefore, there could not have been a guaranteed maximum price, 5) excluding the testimony of Appellant’s expert, Mike Purdy, on the issue of the contingency portion of the contract between the parties and the project budget grids, 6) preventing Appellant’s expert, Robert Kirchner, from testifying about the meaning of ambiguous terms in the contract between the parties, 7) failing to contact counsel for the parties regarding questions asked by the jury during deliberations, 8) improperly responding to the jurors’ questions during deliberations, 9) failing to instruct the jurors that the jurors could award money to the Plaintiff even if Appellee prevailed on one or more of its defenses, 10) denying Appellant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to prejudgment interest, 11) excluding Appellant’s evidence of prejudgment interest at Trial, 12) failing to grant Appellant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, 13) failing to grant Appellant’s Motion for New Trial.

Schedule Code
SC