CalTel v. Anjay Patel

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals CalTel, Inc. Respondent, v. Anjay Patel, Appellant. Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-100 Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed February 22, 2012 AFFIRMED Thomas A. Belenchia and John C. Strickland, both of Spartanburg, for Appellant. Louis D. Nettles, of Florence, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Anjay Patel appeals the trial court's order awarding CalTel, Inc. (CalTel) $80,000 in damages, arguing the trial court erred in: (1) not dismissing the cause of action against him when CalTel had no standing to bring suit, (2) allowing speculative damages into evidence, and (3) allowing the introduction of irrelevant evidence and testimony. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the cause of action against Patel when it learned CalTel had assigned its rights in this matter to a third party and thus had no standing to bring suit: S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) (holding that for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court). 2. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing speculative damages into evidence when calculating the amount of damages owed to CalTel: Collins Holding Corp. v. Landrum, 360 S.C. 346, 350, 601 S.E.2d 332, 334 (2004) ("The law does not require absolute certainty of data upon which lost profits are to be estimated, but all that is required is such reasonable certainty that damages may not be based wholly upon speculation or conjecture, and it is sufficient if there is a certain standard or fixed method by which profits sought to be recovered may be estimated and determined with a fair degree of accuracy."). 3. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of irrelevant evidence and testimony: Historic Charleston Holdings, LLC v. Mallon, 381 S.C. 417, 434, 673 S.E.2d 448, 457 (2009) ("The admission of evidence is a matter left to the discretion of the trial [court] and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."). AFFIRMED. WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.