George Hammersmith, Inc. v. Taco Bell Corporation

942 F.2d 791 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. GEORGE HAMMERSMITH, INC. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TACO BELL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee No. 90-35460. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 12, 1991. * Decided Aug. 15, 1991. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, No. CV-87-00711-Re; James A. Redden, District Judge, Presiding. D.Or. AFFIRMED. Before ALARCON, FERGUSON and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Hammersmith sued Taco Bell after it refused to renew his franchise agreement and altered the terms of his ongoing franchises based on an amendment. Although a jury awarded Hammersmith $2.9 million on his claims of fraud and bad faith, the district court granted Taco Bell's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") and a conditional new trial. The court also dismissed Hammersmith's claims for promissory estoppel and breach of oral contract, denied his motion to file…