This disposit ion is not appropriate f or publication and is not pre cedent except as * provided by

9th Cir. R. 36-3. The pa nel unanimously

conclude s this case is suitable for decision without oral ** argument. See F ed. R. App. P. 34(a) (2).

The Honorable Ralph R. B eistline, United States District Judg e for the District of *** Alaska, sitting by

designation. 1

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T P R UD E NC E C OR P OR AT I ON , P l ai nt i ff

/A pp el l ee , v. S H R E D - I T A M E R I C A , I N C ., D e f

e n d a n t/A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 56759 D. C . No . C V- 0 7 - 0 0 5 5 5 - AG - RNB ME MOR AN DU M *

A p p e a l F r o m th e U n ite dS ta te s D is tr ic t C o u r t f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A ndr e w J . G ui l f

or d, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 11, 2010 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : THOM AS a n d SI LVER M AN , Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d BE I ST LI NE, C hi ef *** D i stri ctJudg e. S hr e d- i tA m e r i c a , I nc . ( S A I ) appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e nti n f a vorof 

# FI LED FEB 18 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P rude nc e C orpor a t i on ( P rude nc e ) i n P rude nc e ’ s di ve r s i ty a c t i on a l l e gi ng br e a c h of a f ranchi se agre em entbetw ee n S A I, the fr anchi sor, and P rudence, the fr anchi se e. T he di s tr i c tc ourtde t e rm i ne d tha tS A I ha d br e a c he d the f r a nc hi s e a gr e e m e ntby fa i l i ng t o t i m el y s ub m i tprop osed re new al t erm s t o P rudence. T he di stri ctcourt or de r e d the r e ne w a l of

the f r a nc hi s e a gr e e m e ntunde rs pe c i f i c pe r f orm a nc e a nd d e c l a r a t o ry r e l i e f

, a n d a war d e d a tt o rn e y s ’ f e e s a n d c o s t s t o P ru d e n c e . S AI c ha l l e nge s the c ourt ’ s f

i ndi ng of br e a c h, a nd a r gue s tha tthe c our t ’ s or de rof s p e c if ic p e r f o rm a n c e c o n s titu te s a n im p r o p e rr e w r itin g o f th e c o n tr a c t. W e di sa gree . T h er e is s u b stan ti al ev id en ce to su p p o rt th e c o u rt’s fin d in g o f b re ac h . S A I’s del ayof w el l ov era y ear i n even att em pt i ng t o renew the fr anchi se agre em entw as ent i re l y unrea sonabl e and harm ful t o P rudence. N on e of S A I’ s e xcuses for del ay ar e l egi t i m at e. M o r e o v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c te d p r o p e r ly w h e n it o r d e r e d s p e c if ic pe r f orm a nc e a tthe or i gi na l r oy a l ty r a t e . A c c or di ng t o the e xpr e s s t e rm s of the f r a nc hi s e a gr e e m e nt , w he r e apa rty i m pr ope r l yw i thhol ds i t s appr ova l of a ny a c t i on prov i ded for i n the contra ct , spec i fi c per form ance i s the prop erre m edy. T here fore , the c our tha d di s c r e t i on t o f a s hi on a n e qui t abl e r e m e dy of s pe c i f i c pe r f orm a nc e , a nd i tdi d n otabuse thatdi sc re t i on w hen i tordere d renew al atthe ori gi nal roya l ty r at e.3

S e e R oge r s v. D a vi s , 34 C a l . R ptr . 2d 716, 720 ( C a l . C t . A pp. , 1994) ( quot i ng R e s ta te m e n t ( F ir s t) o f

C o n tr a c ts , § 3 5 9 ( 2 ) ) ( n o tin g th a t “a‘d e c r e e [ o f s p e c if ic p erfo rm an ce] n eed n o tb e ab so l u t e i n fo rm , an d th e p erfo rm an ce th ati treq u i res n eed n o tb e i d en t i cal w i th th atp ro m i sed i n th e co n tract ; i tm ay b e so d raw n as b est t o eff ec tuat e the pu rposes for w hi ch the contra ctw as m ade, and i tm aybe grant ed on s uc h t e rm s a nd c ondi t i ons a s j us t i c e r e qui r e s . ’ ” ) ; s e e a l s o R e s t a t e m e nt( S e c ond) of C ontr a c t s § 358( 1) . F urthe rm or e , by i m pr ope r l y de l a y i ng r e ne w a l of the ag reem en t , S A I w ai v ed i t s ri g h tt o n eg o t i at e m o re g en ero u s t erm s th an th o se pr ovi de d f

ori n the or i gi na l a gr e e m e nt . S e e E nga l l av. P e rm a ne nt e M e d. G r oup, I n c ., 9 3 8 P .2 d 9 0 3 , 9 2 4 ( C a l. 1 9 9 7 ) ( h o ld in g th a t ap a r ty ’s “c o u r s e o f d e la y ” in perf orm i ng the t erm s of the contra ct , w hen “ un re as on abl e or und ert aken i n b ad f a ith , m a y p r o v id e s u f

f ic ie n t g r o u n d s ” f

o raf in d in g o f w a iv e r ) . T he a w a r d of

f e e s a nd c os t s s houl d a l s o be uphe l d. A c c or di ng t o C a l . C i v. C od e § 17 17 (a ), al l att orneys ’ fe es prov i si on s i n the contra ctar e m ade r ec i procal be tw e e n the pa rt i e s . A l s o, a ny f e e s pr ovi s i ons w hi c h a r e l i m i t e d t o c e r t a i n s e c t i ons of the contra ctm ustbe appl i ed t o the ent i re contra ct“ un l es s e ac h p arty w as re pres ent ed by coun se l i n the nego t i at i on and execut i on of the contra ct , and the fa ct of tha tr e pr e s e nt a t i on i s s pe c i f i e d i n the c ontr a c t . ” C a l . C i v. C ode § 1717( a ) . T he f r a nc hi s e a gr e e m e ntdoe s nots pe c i f i c a l l y not e tha tthe pa r t i e s w e r e r e pr e s e nt e d by4

c o u n s e l. T h u s , th e p r o v is io n s th a t p e rm it S A I to c o lle c t a tto rn e y 's f e e s in c e r ta in i ns t a nc e s a r e m a de appl i c abl e t o thi s s ui tw on by P rude nc e . T he a w a r d of f e e s a nd c o s ts w a s th e r e f

o r e p r o p e r . AF F I R ME D.