GODIGITAL, INC., a Delaware corporation v. CONTENTBRIDGE SYSTEMS, LLC, a California limited liability company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GODIGITAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CONTENTBRIDGE SYSTEMS, LLC, a
California limited liability company,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-55521
D.C. Nos.
2:17-cv-07066-JAK-AFM
2:17-cv-07524-JAK-AFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 12, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff GoDigital, Inc., appeals the district court’s judgment confirming an
arbitration award in favor of Defendant Contentbridge Systems, LLC. We affirm.
GoDigital has not established that the “award is ‘completely irrational,’ or
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
exhibits a ‘manifest disregard of law.’” Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade
Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (citations omitted). As the
district court observed, “a finding that each party breached the contract, and that
each party is entitled to damages for the other’s breach, is legally permissible.”
Brawley v. J.C. Interiors, Inc., 161 Cal. App. 4th 1126, 1134 (2008).
GoDigital contends that, because Contentbridge had partially breached the
contract, it could not have established an essential element in its claim for breach
of contract—its own performance. Contentbridge’s claim, however, was one of
anticipatory breach, as GoDigital had refused to pay for future work that
Contentbridge had not yet had the opportunity to perform. In those circumstances,
Contentbridge was required to prove not past performance, but that it “had the
ability to perform any required conditions under the[] contract.” County of Solano
v. Vallejo Redev. Agency, 75 Cal. App. 4th 1262, 1276 (1999). Given the
arbitration panel’s findings that “Contentbridge made efforts timely to respond to
GoDigital’s requests” and that there was “evidence of efforts by Contentbridge to
satisfy GoDigital,” it was not in manifest disregard of the law or irrational for the
panel to conclude that Contentbridge had carried its burden on its breach-of-
contract claim.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --