Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A.

Ninth Circuit

Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A.

52 F.3d 334, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 18781, 1995 WL 216905

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A.. Read the opinion of the Court — 20 F.3d 987 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 12, 1995·No. 94-36027·Unpublished

Opinion

52 F.3d 334

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
COMERCIAL IBERICA DE EXCLUSIVAS DEPORTIVAS, S.A., a Spanish
corporation; S.A. De Distribuciones Internacionales, a
Spanish corporation; Carlos Rosal Bertrand; Lorenzo Rosal
Bertrand; Mario Loscos, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 94-36027.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 28, 1995.*
Decided April 12, 1995.

Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The Court has no jurisdiction to interpret the agreement or its provision for attorney's fees. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

This panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

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

52 F.3d 334

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
COMERCIAL IBERICA DE EXCLUSIVAS DEPORTIVAS, S.A., a Spanish
corporation; S.A. De Distribuciones Internacionales, a
Spanish corporation; Carlos Rosal Bertrand; Lorenzo Rosal
Bertrand; Mario Loscos, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 94-36027.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 28, 1995.*
Decided April 12, 1995.

Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The Court has no jurisdiction to interpret the agreement or its provision for attorney's fees. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

This panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 52 F.3d 334, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 18781, 1995 WL 216905 (9th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

52 F.3d 334 (Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.