Keith Chung v. City of Los Angeles

Ninth Circuit

Keith Chung v. City of Los Angeles

587 F. App'x 428

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 2014

Docket12-56702

StatusUnpublished

This text of 587 F. App'x 428 (Keith Chung v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keith Chung v. City of Los Angeles, 587 F. App'x 428 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Keith Chung appeals from the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law to Defendants Brand Security Corporation, Heather Holdridge, Intellectual Property Enforcement Company, and Carlos Fernandez following a remand. Chung v. City of Los Angeles, 406 Fed.Appx. 207 (9th Cir.2010) (unpublished). Reviewing de novo, Hagen v. City of Eugene, 736 F.3d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir.2013), we affirm.

1. The district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law on the negligence claim. Defendant Fernandez was the sole expert witness to testify as to the requisite professional standard of care. Plaintiff presented no evidence that Defendants failed to apply that level of care. See Chung, 406 Fed.Appx. at 209 (remanding because Plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact “concerning whether the private defendants acted with” the “care expected of professional counterfeit investigators”). Because no reasonable juror could find for Plaintiff on the issue of breach, Plaintiffs claim fails. Hernandez v. KWPH Enters., 116 Cal.App.4th 170, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 137, 141 (2004).

2. The district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law on the conversion claim. In the initial appeal, we held that Plaintiff could not prevail with respect to items “that had actually come from [Plaintiff’s] store,” but we remanded because a “juror could conclude that [some Defendants] replaced the seized merchandise with other counterfeit goods.” Chung, 406 Fed.Appx. at 211. On remand, Plaintiff expressly disavowed what the parties refer to as the “switch out” theory. Because Plaintiff no longer asserts that the goods were “switched out,” the conversion claim necessarily fails. See, e.g., United States v. Van Alstyne, 584 F.3d 803, 813 (9th Cir.2009) (“The law of the case doctrine provides that one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel *430 has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Keith Chung appeals from the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law to Defendants Brand Security Corporation, Heather Holdridge, Intellectual Property Enforcement Company, and Carlos Fernandez following a remand. Chung v. City of Los Angeles, 406 Fed.Appx. 207 (9th Cir.2010) (unpublished). Reviewing de novo, Hagen v. City of Eugene, 736 F.3d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir.2013), we affirm.

1. The district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law on the negligence claim. Defendant Fernandez was the sole expert witness to testify as to the requisite professional standard of care. Plaintiff presented no evidence that Defendants failed to apply that level of care. See Chung, 406 Fed.Appx. at 209 (remanding because Plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact “concerning whether the private defendants acted with” the “care expected of professional counterfeit investigators”). Because no reasonable juror could find for Plaintiff on the issue of breach, Plaintiffs claim fails. Hernandez v. KWPH Enters., 116 Cal.App.4th 170, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 137, 141 (2004).

2. The district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law on the conversion claim. In the initial appeal, we held that Plaintiff could not prevail with respect to items “that had actually come from [Plaintiff’s] store,” but we remanded because a “juror could conclude that [some Defendants] replaced the seized merchandise with other counterfeit goods.” Chung, 406 Fed.Appx. at 211. On remand, Plaintiff expressly disavowed what the parties refer to as the “switch out” theory. Because Plaintiff no longer asserts that the goods were “switched out,” the conversion claim necessarily fails. See, e.g., United States v. Van Alstyne, 584 F.3d 803, 813 (9th Cir.2009) (“The law of the case doctrine provides that one panel of an appellate court will not as a general rule reconsider questions which another panel *430 has decided on a prior appeal in the same case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 F. App'x 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keith-chung-v-city-of-los-angeles-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack