Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-18-16708/USCOURTS-ca9-18-16708-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD BARRANCO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

3D SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a 

Delaware corporation; 3D 

SYSTEMS, INC., a California 

corporation,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-16708

D.C. No.

1:13-cv-00412-LEK-RLP

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 24, 2019

Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed March 12, 2020

Before: SUSAN P. GRABER, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., 

and PAUL J. WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 1 of 17
2 BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP.

SUMMARY*

Evidence / Equity Jurisdiction

The panel affirmed the district court’s evidentiary 

rulings, and reversed and vacated the monetary judgment in 

favor of 3D Systems Corporation on its breach of contract 

counterclaim, in a diversity action involving a purchase and 

sale agreement documenting 3D Systems’ acquisition of 3D 

printing websites from plaintiff Ronald Barranco.

Plaintiff owned several 3D printing businesses and 

technologies, including Print3D, and two websites, 

www.stereolithography.com and www.laserintering.com 

(the Domains); and plaintiff agreed to sell Print3D and the 

Domains to 3D Systems in two separate contracts.

The panel held that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion in limine to admit 

the Print3D arbitration award at trial. The panel rejected 

plaintiff’s contention that Graef v. Chemical Leaman Corp., 

106 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 1977), supported an admission of the 

arbitration award. The panel also held that it was not error 

for the district court to find that the danger of undue 

prejudice from admitting the arbitration award outweighed 

its probative value. The panel concluded that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of 

the Print3D arbitration award.

The panel held that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by excluding evidence of whether 3D Systems 

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It 

has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 2 of 17
BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP. 3

promised to invest substantial resources in the Domains. 

The panel saw no error insofar as the evidence purportedly 

concerned an element of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. 

The panel further held that even if it were to consider the 

court’s exclusion of the evidence as a measure of expectation 

damages an abuse of discretion, any error was harmless.

The district court exercised equitable jurisdiction to 

award 3D Systems restitution in the form of monetary relief. 

The panel held that the district court erred in concluding that 

3D Systems had a right to an equitable accounting. The 

panel further held that the district court erred by relying 

solely on the text of the parties’ contract to grant equitable 

relief. Accordingly, the panel reversed the monetary award 

for 3D Systems and vacated the corresponding judgment 

against plaintiff.

COUNSEL

Mark Poe (argued), Randolph Gaw, Samuel Song, and 

Victor Meng, Gaw | Poe LLP, San Francisco, California, for 

Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas Benedict (argued) and Dawn T. Sugihara, Farm 

Benedict Sugihara LLP, Honolulu, Hawaii; Nikole Setzler 

Mergo, Nexsen Pruet, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; for 

Defendants-Appellees.

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 3 of 17
4 BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP.

OPINION

M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Ronald Barranco sued Defendants 3D Systems 

Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. (together, 3D Systems), 

for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of 

good faith and fair dealing, among other claims. The claims 

arose out of a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) 

documenting 3D Systems’ acquisition of 3D printing 

websites from Barranco. In turn, 3D Systems 

counterclaimed that Barranco breached a covenant not to 

compete (CNTC) contained in the PSA. 

A jury heard Barranco’s claims and 3D Systems’ 

counterclaim. The district court excluded from the trial 

evidence of an arbitration award in Barranco’s favor on his 

claims arising from a different contract related to a separate 

acquisition. The court also excluded testimony of alleged 

statements by 3D Systems’ CEO about how much Barranco 

would gain as part of the acquisition contemplated by the 

PSA. The jury absolved 3D Systems of liability on 

Barranco’s breach of contract claim and so did not decide 

Barranco’s breach of covenant claim. The jury found, 

however, that Barranco had breached the CNTC. Instead of 

submitting the issue of non-competition damages to the jury, 

the district court exercised equity jurisdiction to enter a 

money judgment against Barranco.

Barranco appeals the district court’s cited evidentiary 

rulings and also argues that the court improperly exercised 

equity jurisdiction to enter a monetary award against him. 

We affirm the evidentiary rulings but reverse the monetary 

judgment.

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 4 of 17
BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP. 5

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Barranco owned several 3D printing businesses and 

technologies, including Print3D, and two websites, 

www.stereolithography.com and www.lasersintering.com 

(the Domains), which brokered the manufacture of 3D 

printed parts. Barranco agreed to sell Print3D and the 

Domains to 3D Systems in two separate contracts. 

I. The Acquisition of the Domains

Barranco sold the Domains to 3D Systems pursuant to 

the PSA. Therein, Barranco granted 3D Systems certain 

rights in the Domains in exchange for: (1) “an immediate 

cash payment of $250,000”; (2) “royalty payments based on 

sales generated by the” Domains; and (3) “a right to exercise 

a buyout, which would terminate the right to Royalty 

Payments and grant entitlement to a lump sum” based on an 

average royalty generated by the Domains. 

The PSA also contained a provision barring Barranco 

from competing with 3D Systems, working for or having any 

role or interest in a business that competed with 3D Systems, 

and developing or designing competing products. As part of 

the CNTC, the parties agreed that: 

any violation of such restriction will result in 

irreparable injury to 3D Systems for which 

damages will not be an adequate remedy. Mr. 

Barranco therefore acknowledges that if he 

violates any such restrictions, 3D Systems 

shall be entitled to preliminary and injunctive 

relief as well as to an equitable accounting of 

earnings, profits and other benefits arising 

from such violation. 

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 5 of 17
6 BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP.

The PSA also contained a cumulative rights clause that did 

not limit 3D Systems’ rights or remedies for a breach of the 

PSA, “whether at law, in equity, by contract or otherwise.” 

Barranco testified in his deposition that, while the parties 

negotiated the sale of the Domains, 3D Systems’ CEO 

Abraham Reichental promised to invest substantial 

resources in the Domains in a way that would increase 

royalty payments. Barranco understood that he would earn 

$5 million in the transaction contemplated by the PSA.1 

During the negotiation, Reichental jotted down notes to 

illustrate the deal’s proposed structure, listing $250,000 as 

the buyout payment, the split royalties and fees, and other 

compensation. Reichental also scrawled “5%” next to the 

$250,000 buyout amount. According to Barranco, 

Reichental stated as he made the notes and totaled the 

various payment provisions, “There’s our deal. That’s how 

we get to $[5] million.” Barranco thus claims that the 

$250,000 payment represented 5% of the total he would earn 

from the deal overall, and 3D Systems effectively promised 

that he stood to receive $5 million pursuant to the PSA’s 

buyout provision. 

Despite his expectations, royalties from the Domains 

were significantly less than Barranco had anticipated, 

amounting to just over $200,000 per year over the five years 

following the acquisition, and Barranco did not earn $5 

million from the acquisition. Barranco sued 3D Systems, 

alleging that it had breached the PSA by failing to invest 

substantial resources in the Domains so that the Domains 

would generate sufficient royalties to produce the payments 

the parties discussed during negotiations over the PSA. 

1 The parties refer interchangeably to $5 million and $6 million as 

the figure in Reichental’s notes. For consistency, we use the $5 million 

figure.

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 6 of 17
BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP. 7

Barranco also claimed a breach of the covenant of good faith 

and fair dealing. 3D Systems counterclaimed, alleging that 

Barranco breached the CNTC by designing and developing 

a technology to compete with 3D Systems. 

II. The Print3D Acquisition and Arbitration

In a separate Print3D contract, Barranco conveyed the 

Print3D technology to 3D Systems. In that contract, 3D 

Systems promised to “continue the Print3D Business as a 

separate profit center and as a going concern in the ordinary 

and proper course” for a certain period of time, and Barranco 

was to be the manager of that business. In consideration of 

the sale of the Print3D technology, Barranco was to receive 

from 3D Systems an up-front payment, stock, and various 

earn-out payments calculated as a percentage of Print3D’s 

revenue. 

In a separate lawsuit, Barranco sued 3D Systems for 

allegedly breaching the Print3D agreement and implied 

covenants of good faith and fair dealing by failing to 

maintain and promote Print3D as a viable business. The 

parties arbitrated those claims pursuant to a dispute 

resolution clause in the Print3D agreement. The arbitrator 

ultimately found for Barranco on those claims and 

determined that the effect of 3D Systems’ conduct “was to 

block . . . Mr. Barranco . . . from ever receiving any earn out 

payments” under the contract. 

III.The Jury Trial on Liability

Barranco’s contract claims and 3D Systems’ breach of 

contract counterclaim in this case proceeded to a jury trial. 

The district court excluded the Print3D arbitration award 

from trial as irrelevant and, alternatively, as unduly 

prejudicial and likely to confuse the jury. The court also 

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 7 of 17
8 BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP.

excluded reference to the $5 million figure from 

Reichental’s notes, which Barranco attempted to offer as a 

measure of expectancy damages for his contract claims. 

At the close of evidence and before submission to the 

jury, Barranco moved for judgment as a matter of law 

(JMOL) on 3D Systems’ counterclaim because 3D Systems 

had not presented any evidence of damages. 3D Systems 

responded that, in lieu of damages, it was entitled to an 

equitable accounting pursuant to the PSA’s terms, and 

further invoked an employee’s duty of loyalty to argue that 

“the appropriate measure of damages was disgorgement of 

profits generated” on the job.2 The court denied Barranco’s 

JMOL motion. The special verdict form to which the parties 

agreed contained no provision for the jury to determine 3D 

Systems’ damages or other remedies in the event the jury 

found that Barranco had breached the CNTC. 

The jury returned a verdict for 3D Systems on both 

Barranco’s breach of contract claim and 3D Systems’ breach 

of contract counterclaim. On the former, the jury found that 

3D Systems did not promise to invest substantial resources 

in the Domains. Thus, the jury did not reach the issue of 

Barranco’s claimed damages. On 3D Systems’ 

counterclaim, the jury found only that Barranco had 

breached the CNTC. 

IV.The Bench Trial on Equitable Relief

After the jury returned its verdict, the district court held 

a bench trial to conduct an equitable accounting as 3D 

Systems’ remedy for Barranco’s CNTC breach. Based on 

2 Although Hawaii law recognizes a claim for an employee’s breach 

of the duty of loyalty owed to the employer, 3D Systems did not 

counterclaim on that theory.

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 8 of 17
BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP. 9

the jury’s finding that Barranco had breached the CNTC, the 

court determined that the PSA entitled 3D Systems to “an 

equitable accounting of earnings, profits and other benefits 

arising from such violation(s).” Because the jury found only 

that Barranco had breached the CNTC, the court first made 

findings as to what conduct constituted the breach. The 

court found that Barranco had violated the CNTC by, among 

other things, accessing and sharing 3D Systems’ proprietary 

technology with people who were not employed by 3D 

Systems, and by undertaking to develop an online quotation 

system for other 3D-printing businesses.

The court next performed an accounting of the “earnings, 

profits and other benefits arising from” the violations of the 

CNTC. It found that there was “no evidence” that Barranco 

derived any benefit from violating the CNTC and, further, 

that the violations did not cause 3D Systems “to lose sales, 

to lower its prices, or to suffer reduced profit margins” or 

otherwise suffer harm. The court then found that the PSA 

did not “fully address” the circumstances presented, “where 

violations of the Non-Compete Provision stopped short of 

commercial exploitation and no earnings, profits, or other 

benefits have yet arisen from the violation.” As a result, the 

court determined that it had discretion to award other 

equitable remedies, such as restitution, “to afford complete 

relief” as a matter of its equity jurisdiction. The court 

calculated the portion of the amounts Barranco received 

under the PSA as consideration for his promise not to 

compete with 3D Systems and ordered them disgorged. The 

court entered judgment for 3D Systems, ordering Barranco 

to disgorge more than $500,000, plus prejudgment interest. 

Barranco timely appealed.

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 9 of 17
10 BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and 

reverse only if a ruling is “erroneous and prejudicial.” 

Wagner v. Cty. of Maricopa, 747 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 

2013) (emphasis added). “When error is established, we 

must presume prejudice unless it is more probable than not 

that the error did not materially affect the verdict.” Boyd v. 

City & Cty. of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938, 949 (9th Cir. 

2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Following a bench trial, we review the district court’s 

findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de 

novo. OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc., 634 F.3d 

1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2011). We also review a district court’s 

interpretation of state law de novo. Flores v. City of 

Westminster, 873 F.3d 739, 748 (9th Cir. 2017). We review 

a federal court’s choice of remedies for an abuse of 

discretion. Teutscher v. Woodson, 835 F.3d 936, 942 (9th 

Cir. 2016); Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of 

Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. California, 813 F.3d 1155, 

1163 (9th Cir. 2015). 

ANALYSIS

I. The Challenged Evidentiary Rulings 

A. Exclusion of the Arbitration Award

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

Barranco’s motion in limine to admit the Print3D arbitration 

award at trial. Barranco contends that the arbitration award 

is relevant because the same 3D Systems conduct underlies 

both the arbitrator’s findings in the Print3D case and 3D 

Systems’ alleged breach of the PSA. According to Barranco, 

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 10 of 17
BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP. 11

the parties negotiated the Print3D and Domains transactions 

at the same time, and the same 3D Systems employees 

managed the integration of both the Domains and Print3D 

within 3D Systems. In Barranco’s view, the arbitrator’s 

findings about 3D Systems’ conduct related to the Print3D 

contract “certainly have some tendency to make it more 

probable than otherwise that 3D Systems did the same thing 

with respect to the Domains.” We disagree.

Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a 

fact more or less probable than it would be without the 

evidence,” and “the fact is of consequence in determining 

the action.” Fed. R. of Evid. 401. A court “may exclude 

relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially 

outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing 

the issues, [or] misleading the jury . . . .” Fed. R. of Evid. 

403. In its discretion, a court may admit an arbitration award 

“with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case” and 

accord it such weight as the court deems appropriate. 

Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 60 & n.21 

(1974).

Barranco relies on Graef v. Chemical Leaman 

Corporation, 106 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 1997), to argue that the 

arbitration award should have been admitted. In Graef, an 

employee on disability leave sued for retaliatory discharge 

when his employer removed him from the seniority list 

allegedly in retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation 

claim. Graef challenged his removal from the seniority list 

in an arbitration. Id. at 116. In the retaliatory discharge 

action, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court abused its 

discretion by excluding evidence of the arbitration when the 

arbitrator’s findings made the employer’s “non-retaliatory 

reason for the discharge more believable and, therefore, 

Graef’s allegations of retaliation less probable.” Id. at 117.

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 11 of 17
12 BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP.

Graef is distinguishable. The arbitrator there made 

findings that went directly to an element of Graef’s 

retaliatory discharge claim. More critically, in both the 

arbitration and the lawsuit, Graef claimed contractual and 

statutory rights violations arising from the same adverse 

employment action. Here, however, the Print3D arbitration 

“involved different claims about a different contract 

involving the acquisition of a different asset,” and the 

arbitrator’s findings regarding the breach of the Print3D 

contract would not tend to make an alleged breach of the 

PSA more or less probable. Thus, Graef does not persuade 

us that the district court abused its discretion by excluding 

the arbitration award in this case.

Barranco further argues that the court erred in 

alternatively finding the evidence posed a danger of undue 

prejudice.3

 We have previously determined that “reference 

to facts found in a judicial opinion can unfairly prejudice a 

party,” because “jurors are likely to defer to findings and 

determinations relevant to credibility made by an 

authoritative, professional factfinder rather than determine 

those issues for themselves.” United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 

1021, 1033–34 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Although the arbitration award at issue here is not a 

judicial order, the district court’s exclusion of the evidence 

was not manifestly erroneous considering the purposes for 

which Barranco sought to offer it. Citing specific findings 

from the Print3D arbitration, Barranco argues the arbitrator 

found that 3D Systems “engaged in bad faith” and that those 

3 Barranco also asserts that the court’s exclusion of the evidence 

based on the potential for jury confusion was error, but he provides no 

argument in support. We thus deem the argument abandoned. See 

Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 12 of 17
BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP. 13

findings have “some tendency to make it more probable than 

otherwise that 3D Systems did the same thing with respect 

to the Domains.” In light of a jury’s tendency to defer to a 

professional factfinder, and Barranco’s stated intent to use 

the arbitrator’s findings to enable the jury to infer scienter 

from 3D Systems’ breach of a different contract, it was not 

error for the district court to find that the danger of undue 

prejudice from admitting the arbitration award outweighed 

its probative value.4 Accordingly, the district court did not 

abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of the Print3D 

arbitration award.

B. Damages Evidence

Barranco argues that the district court abused its 

discretion by excluding evidence of whether 3D Systems 

promised to invest substantial resources in the domains. The 

excluded evidence was Barranco’s testimony about the 

statements that 3D Systems’ CEO Abraham Reichental 

made during PSA negotiations while Reichental was taking 

notes of the deal’s structure. Reichental concluded with, 

“[t]hat’s how we get to $[5] million.” That evidence, 

Barranco argues, concerned both an element of Barranco’s 

breach of contract claim against 3D Systems as well as 

damages for that breach. 

4 The district court did not err by ruling on Barranco’s motion in 

limine without explaining its reasoning. “As long as it appears from the 

record as a whole that the trial judge adequately weighed the probative 

value and prejudicial effect of proffered evidence before its admission, 

we conclude that the demands of Rule 403 have been met.” United States 

v. Verduzco, 373 F.3d 1022, 1029 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting United 

States v. Sangrey, 586 F.2d 1312, 1315 (1978)). The parties thoroughly 

briefed the issues relating to the arbitration award before the court ruled 

on the motion to admit the evidence. There is no indication that the court 

did not adequately perform the balancing required under Rule 403.

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 13 of 17
14 BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP.

We see no error insofar as the evidence purportedly 

concerned an element of Barranco’s breach of contract 

claim. At trial, Barranco sought to offer the $5 million figure 

only as a measure of expectation damages. Not until 

Barranco filed a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial—after the 

district court had already excluded the evidence and after the 

jury trial—did he argue that Reichental’s statements about 

the $5 million figure were also necessary to prove an element 

of his breach of contract claim, specifically that 3D Systems 

promised to invest in the Domains. The district court could 

not have abused its discretion when it made its exclusionary 

ruling by failing to consider an argument not previously 

raised by Barranco. 

Even were we to consider the court’s exclusion of the 

evidence as a measure of expectation damages an abuse of 

discretion, any such error was harmless. See Boyd, 576 F.3d 

at 949 (stating prejudice standard). Because the jury found 

that 3D Systems did not breach the PSA, the jury did not 

reach the question of damages on that claim. 

II. The District Court’s Monetary Judgment

The district court exercised equitable jurisdiction to 

award 3D Systems restitution in the form of monetary relief. 

In conducting an equitable accounting, the district court 

concluded that Barranco did not obtain “earnings, profits, or 

other benefits” that arose out of his violations of the CNTC 

that would entitle 3D Systems to relief pursuant to the 

CNTC. In order to avoid an unjust outcome and “afford 

complete relief” under the circumstances, the court awarded 

restitution on a theory of unjust enrichment.

The district court gave two reasons for concluding that 

3D Systems had a right to an equitable accounting. First, the 

court invoked an exception to the general rule that a court 

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 14 of 17
BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP. 15

may exercise equitable jurisdiction only when legal 

remedies are inadequate. Second, the court concluded that, 

“[p]ursuant to the PSA,” 3D Systems had a right to an 

equitable accounting. Both reasons were erroneous. 

“The necessary prerequisite” for a court to award 

equitable remedies is “the absence of an adequate remedy at 

law.” Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 478 (1962); 

accord Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 105 

(1945). The district court did not address that general rule 

explicitly, but it correctly assumed that the rule applied to 

this case. But the court then erroneously relied on an 

exception to the rule: An equitable remedy may be 

appropriate, even when the “cause of action [is] cognizable 

at law,” if the plaintiff can “show that the ‘accounts between 

the parties’ are of such a ‘complicated nature’ that only a 

court of equity can satisfactorily unravel them.” Dairy 

Queen, 369 U.S. at 478 (quoting Kirby v. Lake Shore & 

M.S.R. Co., 120 U.S. 130, 134 (1887)). The Supreme Court

has emphasized that, in light of a federal court’s ability to 

appoint a special master to assist a jury “in those exceptional 

cases” where an equitable remedy is appropriate, “the 

burden of such a showing is considerably increased and it 

will indeed be a rare case in which it can be met.” Id. 

Here, the district court erred in finding that “the issues 

related to the Non-Compete Counterclaim were complex 

enough to merit an equitable accounting, and an equitable 

accounting to determine recovery, rather than a jury finding 

to determine damages, was appropriate.” 3D Systems made 

no such showing—it failed to present any evidence of 

damages at the jury trial, much less that the accounts 

between the parties were complicated. Instead, the district 

court relied on the provisions of the PSA to conduct an 

accounting, from which it found “no evidence that Barranco 

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 15 of 17
16 BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP.

obtained earnings, profits, or other benefits” attributable to 

the violations of the Non-Compete Provision. That 

calculation was not so complicated that a jury would not 

have been able to make the determination. When the court 

did determine a monetary award based on a theory of unjust 

enrichment, it did so by performing basic calculations from 

evidence adduced at the bench trial. This was not one of the 

“rare cases” that warranted equitable relief based solely on 

the complexity of the relief sought. Dairy Queen, 369 U.S. 

at 478. The district court erred in finding the exception 

applied. 

The district court also erred by relying solely on the text 

of the parties’ contract to grant equitable relief. We hold that 

the terms of a contract alone cannot require a court to grant 

equitable relief. In doing so, we adopt the accepted rule of 

our sister circuits that have addressed the question. See 

Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 

356 F.3d 1256, 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 2004) (“While courts 

have given weight to parties’ contractual statements 

regarding the nature of harm and attendant remedies that will 

arise as a result of a breach of a contract, they nonetheless 

characteristically hold that such statements alone are 

insufficient to support a finding of irreparable harm and an 

award of injunctive relief.”); Smith, Bucklin & Assocs., Inc. 

v. Sonntag, 83 F.3d 476, 481 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“Although 

there is a contractual provision that states that the company 

has suffered irreparable harm if the employee breaches the 

covenant and that the employee agrees to be preliminarily 

enjoined, this by itself is an insufficient prop.”); Baker’s Aid, 

a Div. of M. Raubvogel Co. v. Hussmann Foodservice Co., 

830 F.2d 13, 16 (2d Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (“[C]ontractual 

language declaring money damages inadequate in the event 

of a breach does not control the question whether 

preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate.”); cf. Dairy 

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 16 of 17
BARRANCO V. 3D SYSTEMS CORP. 17

Queen, 369 U.S. at 477–78 (“[T]he constitutional right to 

trial by jury cannot be made to depend upon the choice of 

words used in the pleadings.”).

We recognize that Hawaii law governs the underlying 

contract here and that Hawaii law makes equitable relief 

available in certain instances even when there is an express 

contract. See, e.g., Hawaiian Ass’n of Seventh-Day 

Adventists v. Wong, 305 P.3d 452, 465–66 (Haw. 2013) 

(recognizing the availability of breach of contract and unjust 

enrichment claims for a lease violation); Eckard Brandes, 

Inc. v. Riley, 338 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(recognizing a claim for an employee’s breach of the duty of 

loyalty to an employer under Hawaii law and affirming the 

remedy of disgorgement); Porter v. Hu, 169 P.3d 994, 1007 

(Haw. App. Ct. 2007) (granting relief on a theory of unjust 

enrichment where an express contract “did not provide for 

redress of the specific harm done”). Those cases are 

inapposite here, however, because 3D Systems did not elect 

to bring claims for unjust enrichment or breach of the duty 

of loyalty, and because the PSA contained a cumulative 

rights clause that contemplated an award of damages. 

The district court thus erred in awarding 3D Systems an 

equitable remedy on its legal claim for damages resulting 

from Barranco’s breach of the CNTC. We reverse the 

monetary award for 3D Systems and vacate the 

corresponding judgment against Barranco.

CONCLUSION

The district court’s evidentiary rulings are AFFIRMED. 

The monetary judgment in favor of 3D Systems on its breach 

of contract counterclaim is REVERSED and VACATED. 

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

Case: 18-16708, 03/12/2020, ID: 11627063, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 17 of 17