Western Oilfields Supply Compa v. Jerry Goodwin

Good Law
461 F. App'x 624
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 14, 201110-16254, 10-17212, 10-17573California697 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Western Oilfields Supply Co. (“Rain for Rent”), appeals: the district court’s judgment, following a jury trial, in favor of Jerry Goodwin and the directed verdict dismissing Flora Goodwin from the suit; the district court’s post-judgment order finding that Rain for Rent was not the prevailing party and thus not entitled to attorney’s fees; and the district court’s post-judgment order granting Goodwin $181,530.42 in attorney’s fees. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court in all respects.

The district court did not err in excluding “lack of consideration” from the jury instruction given on promissory estoppel. “Jury instructions must be formulated so that they fairly and adequately cover the issues presented, correctly state the law, and are not misleading.” Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292, 294 (9th Cir.1996). “If the instructions are challenged as a misstatement of the law, they are then reviewed de novo.” City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co., 46 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir.1995) (citation omitted). The district court properly instructed the jury on the four prima facie elements of promissory estoppel, based on California law, and was not required…

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.