Martin

Martin v. Arrow Electronics, Inc.

Good Law
336 F. App'x 596
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 29, 2009Nos. 06-56452, 06-56538, 06-56674California1,125 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

DefendanL-Appellant-Cross Appellee Arrow Electronics (“Arrow”) appeals a jury verdict, the district court’s partial grant of its motion for judgment as a *599 matter of law, the district court’s refusal to amend the language on the special verdict form, and the grant of attorneys’ fees to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant Doug Martin (“Martin”) cross appeals the district court’s allowance of Arrow’s amendment during trial of the pleadings and pretrial order and its partial grant of Arrow’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the district court in all respects.

The district court did not err in allowing Arrow to amend the pleadings and the pretrial order, even assuming the manifest injustice standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e) applies. See Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir.1998) (superseded by statute on other grounds). Before Martin’s trial testimony was presented, Arrow did not know the key fact that Martin had received money from an Arrow customer as a result of Martin’s brokering deals for Arrow’s goods, and it did not exhibit bad faith in failing to…

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.