Lew Wenzel & Company of Southern California, Inc. v. London Litho Supply Co., Inc., and Counterclaimant-Appellant

Bad Law
563 F.2d 1367·1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10921
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 4, 197776-2720California817 words

Opinion

Opinion

In this diversity case, London Litho Supply Co., Inc. (“Litho”) appeals from a judgment on remand contending that the district court improperly interpreted our remand from the prior appeal and, accordingly, impermissibly allowed Wenzel & Company (“Wenzel”) an award of attorney’s fees and incorrectly awarded Wenzel post-judgment interest from the date that the original judgment was entered, rather than from the date upon which judgment was entered after remand. We affirm.

Wenzel sued Joseph London and Litho on alternative theories of tort and breach of contract, seeking damages for injuries arising out of Litho’s and London’s purchase of Wenzel’s business. The district court awarded no compensatory damages against London, but it awarded punitive damages against him. Next, the court awarded both compensatory and punitive damages against Litho. On the first appeal, we held that, applying California law, punitive damages could not be awarded against London, because no compensatory damages had been awarded against him. We also overturned the punitive damages award against Litho, because, while,the district court had awarded compensatory damages for breach of contract, it had not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.