Sram Corp. v. Shimano, Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendants Shimano, Inc. and Shimano American Corporation (collectively, “Shimano”) appeal the judgment of the district court in favor of SRAM Corporation (“SRAM”) for various alleged violations of California law. We affirm. Because the parties are well familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court did not err when it instructed the jury that, as a matter of law, return on equity capital is an element of cost under the California Unfair Practices Act. See Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 17026,17029.

“The task of a federal court in a diversity action is to approximate state law as closely as possible in order to make sure that the vindication of the state right is without discrimination because of the federal forum.” Gee v. Tenneco, Inc., 615 F.2d 857, 861 (9th Cir.1980). In doing so, federal courts are bound by the pronouncements of the state’s highest court on applicable state law. See Davis v. Met ro Prods., Inc., 885 F.2d 515 , 524 (9th Cir.1989). “Where the state’s highest court has not decided an issue, the task of the federal courts is to predict how the state high court would resolve it.”…