Pom Wonderful Llc, a Delaware limited liability company v. WELCH FOODS, INC., a Michigan corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for**
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
POM WONDERFUL LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WELCH FOODS, INC., a Michigan
corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-56791
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00567-AHM-
AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 8, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pom Wonderful LLC contends that the district court erred by submitting to
the jury, at the end of the first phase of the bifurcated trial, the fact-of-injury
FILED
FEB 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

On May 9, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation Concerning1
Video Deposition Clips Played at Trial. We construe this submission as a joint
motion to supplement the record. So construed, the motion is GRANTED.
2
element of Pom’s Lanham Act claim. We disagree. The decision to submit that
issue to the jury accorded with the pretrial order bifurcating the trial and was not an
abuse of discretion.
Pom also contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying its
motion to reopen the trial to submit further evidence on injury. Again, we
disagree. The record supports the district court’s decision to deny Pom’s request.
See Berns v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 667 F.2d 826, 829 (9th Cir. 1982). The
record likewise supports the district court’s decision not to grant Pom a partial new
trial.1
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --