Yacht West, Ltd. v. Christensen Shipyards, Ltd.

MEMORANDUM *

We consider here the cross-appeals by Christensen Shipyards, Ltd. and Yacht West, Ltd. from the district court’s post-trial order granting in part and denying in part the parties’ motions for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

I. Christensen’s Rule 50(b) Motion

A jury’s verdict of compensatory damages is reviewed for substantial evidence. In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1247-48 (9th Cir.2001). It must be affirmed “unless the amount is grossly excessive or monstrous, clearly not supported by the evidence, or based only on speculation or guesswork.” Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, 95 F.3d 1422, 1435 (9th Cir.1996). In calculating damages, a factfinder is entitled to “make a reasonable inference of damages from the facts adduced.” Holland Livestock Ranch v. United States, 655 F.2d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir.1981).

1. Substantial evidence supported the jury’s award of $2.6 million to Yacht West for the nonconforming exhaust system. Yacht West’s expert testified that his conceptual analysis showed that it was possible to reroute the exhaust system to…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in all but part 1.2 of the memorandum disposition, from which I respectfully dissent. I would hold that substantial evidence supports the jury’s award of $2 million to Yacht West for the structural defect. All parties agree that the yacht is overweight, that it suffers from a vibration, that the vibration is structural and hull-related and that further evaluating and remedying the defect will be extremely costly. Yacht West’s expert testified that the defect would cost at least $4 million to repair, and Christensen did not offer a repair estimate of its own to refute that testimony. There was also testimony that the structural defect affected the market value of the yacht, which in any event is self-evident, as well as the uses to which the yacht could safely be put. That the jury awarded Yacht West only half of what it requested further indicates that the jury exercised its discretion. It is true that Yacht West’s experts could not isolate the precise source of the problem or set out a specific plan for repair without further evaluation, but I do not believe Yacht West was required to tear the vessel apart to establish an…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

YACHT WEST, LTD., a Cayman Islands No. 10-35382 company, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01547-KI Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CHRISTENSEN SHIPYARDS, LTD., a Washington corporation; DAVID H.

CHRISTENSEN,

Defendants - Appellants.

YACHT WEST, LTD., a Cayman Islands No. 10-35383 company, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01547-KI Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHRISTENSEN SHIPYARDS, LTD., a Washington corporation; DAVID H.

CHRISTENSEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Garr M. King, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 14, 2011 Portland, Oregon

Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

We consider here the cross-appeals by Christensen Shipyards, Ltd. and

Yacht West, Ltd. from the district court’s post-trial order granting in…