Aco Pacific, Inc. v. Aco Co., Ltd., a Japanese Corporation Quest Electronics, a Division of Labelle Industries, Inc.

70 F.3d 1277 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. ACO PACIFIC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACO CO., LTD., a Japanese corporation; QUEST ELECTRONICS, a division of LaBelle Industries, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-15497. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 19, 1995. Decided Nov. 17, 1995. Before: SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 ACO Pacific appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ACO Co., Ltd., ("ACO Japan") on its tortious interference with contractual and economic relationship claims, and the court's refusal to grant ACO Pacific's motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 * ACO Pacific contends that the district court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of Quest on its tortious interference claims. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. 4 Neither tortious interference with contract nor…