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Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-100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.