Aerielle, LLC v Maximo Product, LLC

Filing 56

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 49 defendant's Motion for a New Trial or to Alter or Amend the Judgment. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2012)

1
2

*E-FILED: August 16, 2012*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

No. C10-03420 HRL

AERIELLE, LLC,

12

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL OR TO
ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15

[Re: Docket No. 49]

MAXIMO PRODUCTS, LLC,
Defendant.
/

16
17

Following a bench trial in this breach of contract action, the court entered judgment for

18

plaintiff Aerielle LLC (Aerielle) in the amount $163,871.07. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59,

19

defendant Maximo Product, LLC (Maximo) now moves for a new trial, or for an order altering

20

or amending that judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The matter is deemed suitable for

21

determination without oral argument, and the August 21, 2012 hearing is vacated. CIV. L.R. 7-

22

1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, the court denies the motion.

23

After a non-jury trial, the court may grant a motion for a new trial “for any reason for

24

which a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.” FED. R. CIV.

25

P. 59(a)(1)(B). A new trial may be granted to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to

26

address newly discovered evidence. Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978); Wade

27

v. United States, No. C09-01976JCS, 2012 WL 2990700 at *2 (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2012).

28

1

A motion to alter or amend a judgment “under Rule 59(e) ‘should not be granted, absent

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’”

4

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners

5

v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). Rule 59(e) “offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to

6

be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Carroll v.

7

Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 12 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S

8

FEDERAL PRACTICE § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000)). “A district court does not commit clear error

9

warranting reconsideration when the question before it is a debatable one.” Morales v. Tingy,

10

No. C05-03498PJH, 2010 WL 459046 at *1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2010) (citing McDowell, 197

11
For the Northern District of California

highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered

3

United States District Court

2

F.3d at 1256). And, the court “should not reverse itself if its initial decision was merely wrong.

12

Rather, it should do so only if the prior decision was ‘clearly’ wrong.” Bull v. City & County

13

of San Francisco, 758 F. Supp.2d 925, 928 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

14

Maximo does not present this court with newly discovered evidence. Nor does it

15

identify any intervening change in controlling law. Maximo argues only that the court erred in

16

entering judgment for plaintiff. Maximo’s argument is three-fold. First, defendant contends

17

that plaintiff’s sole witness, Donald Yu, was not competent to testify about any of the business

18

dealings between plaintiff and defendant. Second, Maximo argues that the agreements at issue

19

were made with Aerielle, Inc. and that plaintiff failed to present competent evidence that

20

Aerielle, LLC is entitled to judgment against Maximo. Third, defendant repeats arguments

21

asserted at trial that plaintiff reportedly agreed that Maximo would not be obliged to make

22

payments on certain invoices.

23

Taking defendant’s second argument first—Yu, who was the Chief Executive Officer of

24

Aerielle, Inc. and Aerielle, LLC, testified that Aerielle, LLC acquired all the assets of Aerielle,

25

Inc. (Dkt No. 48, Trial Transcript (Tr.) at 7:22-8:7, 4:22-42:14, 44:21-22). There was no

26

evidence to the contrary. This testimony is sufficient to establish plaintiff’s entitlement to

27

judgment against Maximo.

28
2

1

As for defendant’s first and third points—the court noted in its Findings of Fact and

2

Conclusions of Law that Yu did not join Aerielle until March 2009 and had no first-hand

3

knowledge about any of the transactions in dispute. Even so, the judgment is adequately

4

supported by the testimony of Maximo’s own Director (and sole witness) Jimmy Yau. Yau

5

acknowledged that defendant had not lived up to the terms of the Promissory Agreement. (See,

6

e.g., Tr. at 95:21-96:12; 113:4-8). With respect to Invoice Nos. 341, 342, and 343, defendant

7

reiterates that Aerielle agreed that Maximo would not need to make those payments and that

8

Aerielle would sell the product covered by those invoices to someone else. As noted in the

9

court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, defendant offered no documentation at trial to
support that story, and the court found it highly unlikely that plaintiff would have waived its

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

remedies so casually. The court considered the testimony and evidence offered by Maximo, but

12

concluded that it did not establish that plaintiff relinquished those payments. Defendant has not

13

offered any new evidence here, and the court finds no basis to grant a new trial or to alter or

14

amend the judgment.

15

Defendant’s motion is denied.

16

SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: August 16, 2012

18
HOWARD R. LLOYD
19

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

5:10-cv-03420-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Margaret Anne Crawford

3

Paul Gerard Minoletti

4

William J. Frimel

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4