Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant related to a dispute of a hotel management agreement. The defendant has hired a Hotel & Hospitality Expert Witness to provide testimony. The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion to exclude.
Facts: This case (Wischermann Partners, Inc. v. Nashville Hospitality Capital LLC – United States District Court – Middle District of Tennessee – August 13th, 2019) involves a dispute over a hotel management agreement. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement whereby the plaintiff would manage the defendant’s hotel. The defendant argues that it terminated the agreement for cause. The defendant has hired Hotel & Hospitality Expert Witness C. G. Pinkowski to provide testimony. The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Discussion: The court notes that Pinkowski is the founder of a Memphis consulting company and has more than forty years of experience in the hospitality industry in the fields of consulting and national chain hotel development. The court notes that Pinkowski will be testifying about the financial impact to the defendant as a consequence of the plaintiffs actions.
The plaintiffs argue that Pinkowski’s opinion that the Westin and The Joseph will be competitors should be excluded as unreliable because it is contradicted by Pinkowski’s testimony and is not substantiated by the numbers. The defendant argues that criticisms like these go to the weight of the testimony and not their admissibility.
The plaintiffs argue that Pinkowski’s analysis of The Joseph’s impact on The Westin is not reliable because it doesn’t show any methodology and ignored the impact of other hotels in the area besides The Joseph. The defendant replies that Pinkowski’s report has detailed explanations of his methodology and reasoning for arriving at each of his conclusions and calculations of impact. The defendant also argues that the plaintiffs challenge as to the reliability of Pinkowski’s impact analysis for failing to take into consideration other hotels is not a proper basis to exclude his testimony.
Also, the defendant argues that the plaintiff’s challenge to Pinkowski’s report based on lack of causation goes to the weight of the testimony, not their admissibility.
In addition, the plaintiff argues that Pinkowski’s opinions on lost revenue are unreliable because they are contradicted by data and deposition testimony. Again, the defendant states that these arguments go to the weight of the testimony and not their admissibility.
The court opines that the the plaintiff’s arguments that Pinkowski’s opinion are unreliable because he failed to review other relevant information and ignore certain facts go to the weight of the testimony, not the admissibility.
The court opines that Pinkowski is a reliable witness whose testimony meets the requirements for admissibility under Daubert.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of C. G. Pinkowski is denied.