McDowell

McDowell v. Herbalife International of America, Inc.

Good Law
63 F. App'x 332
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 21, 2003No. 02-35381; D.C. No. CV-00-02011-TSZCalifornia395 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jason McDowell appeals the district court’s judgment awarding damages following a six-day jury trial, and denial of his motion for a new trial, in his diversity action against his employer for breach of a distributorship agreement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). Hemmings v. Tidyman’s, Inc., 285 F.3d 1174 , 1189 (9th Cir.2002). We review a jury’s award of damages for substantial evidence and will not disturb the award unless it is clearly unsupported by the evidence. In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1247-48 (9th Cir.2001). We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and will not disturb them absent a showing of prejudice. Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 927 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the jury’s award of damages. See In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d at 1247-48 (“Reasonable jurors need not accept the views of one side’s expert or the other’s, but may make their own reasonable judgment on the evidence, accepting part, all, or none of any witness’s testimony.”). Accordingly, the…

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.