Case ID: f-appx_476/html/0275-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The BARTON GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. NCR CORPORATION, Defendant-Counter-Claim-Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
    
    Nos. 11-2751-cv(L), 11-2930-cv(XAP), 11-3120-cv(CON).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 23, 2012.
    Sean C. Sheely, Holland & Knight LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-CounterClaim-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appel-lant.
    Ira C. Greenberg, Edwards Angelí Palmer & Dodge LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Counter-Claim-Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, AMALYA L. KEARSE, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as shown above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

This matter comes to us from a judgment entered after a jury verdict. Defendant-Counter-Claim-Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, NCR Corporation, appeals from the judgment of the district court, awarding Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, The Barton Group, Inc., $8,018,667.00 in damages and $463,603.42 in prejudgment interest. The Barton Group appeals from the district court’s decision denying its request for equitable relief. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying factual allegations, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review the district court’s denial of NCR Corporation’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. Hydro Invs., Inc. v. Trafalgar Power Inc., 227 F.3d 8, 15 (2d Cir.2000). We accept the parties’ agreement that we review the district court’s denial of The Barton Group’s request for equitable relief for abuse of discretion.

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

We have considered all of the parties’ additional arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, 
      
      . We express no opinion as to our standard of review of the district court’s denial of The Barton Group’s request for equitable relief.