Hellas

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Medieon Hellas, S.A. (“Medicon”) appeals from the judgment of the district court entering judgment as a matter of law on June 23, 2000, in favor of Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”). The district court held that the evidence presented by Medieon was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Paragraph 9(e) of the parties’ distribution agreement imposed any binding post-termination obligations on Abbott under California law.

The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . A grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law is reviewed de novo. See, e.g., Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 251 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir.2001). We hold that Paragraph 9(e) constituted nothing more than a mere agreement to agree, and because such agreements are unenforceable under California law, we affirm the district court’s decision.

The basic facts have already been set for by both parties in their briefs.

Under California law, indefinite “agreements to agree” cannot impose legally binding obligations on either party. See, e.g., Cable & Computer Technology v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc., 214 F.3d 1030…