Crest Ultrasonics Corporation (“Crest”) appeals the district courts orders granting Frankl Miller Webb & Moyers, LLP (“Frankl Miller”) summary judgment on liability and awarding Frankl Miller $165,404.46 in damages following a bench trial on Frankl Millers breach of contract claim arising out of its representation of Crest in a products liability lawsuit. We affirm.
“We review a district courts grant of summary judgment de novo.” Variety Stores, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 888 F.3d 651, 659 (4th Cir. 2018) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate “ ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). In making this determination, “courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and refrain from weighing the evidence or making credibility determinations.” Id. (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted).
To establish a breach of contract claim under Virginia law, a plaintiff must show “(1) a legally enforceable obligation of a defendant to a plaintiff; (2) the defendants violation or breach of that obligation; and (3) injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach of obligation.” Navar, Inc. v. Fed. Bus. Council, 291 Va. 338, 784 S.E.2d 296, 299 (2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Contrary to Crests arguments on appeal, whether Frankl Miller adequately mitigated its damages is not relevant to whether Crest was liable for breach of contract. See Monahan v. Obici Med. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 271 Va. 621, 628 S.E.2d 330, 337 (2006) (“[M]itigation of damages is not a defense that, if proven, constitutes an absolute bar to the plaintiffs claim.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order granting Frankl Miller summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Turning to the district courts order awarding damages, “[w]e review judgments resulting from a bench trial under a mixed standard of review: factual findings may be reversed only if clearly erroneous, while conclusions of law are examined de novo.” United States v. Landersman, 886 F.3d 393, 406 (4th Cir. 2018) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “In reviewing an award of compensatory damages ․, we affirm the award unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence, based upon evidence that is false, or would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Randall v. Prince Georges Cnty., 302 F.3d 188, 202 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the record reveals no reversible error with respect to the district courts damages award.
We therefore affirm the district courts judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.