NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STRONG TRADING, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff-counterdefendant-Appellee, 

 v. 

UNIQUE DESIGNS, INC., a New Jersey 

Corporation, DBA SDIL Kiran Jewels, 

Defendant-counter-claimantAppellant, 

 v. 

KURT CHEN, an individual, 

Counter-defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-55759 

D.C. No. 

2:21-cv-04206-RGK-PVC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2024**

Pasadena, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 20 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-55759 

Before: TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,*** District 

Judge.

Unique Designs, Inc. appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for 

judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial following a jury verdict 

finding Unique Designs liable for damages in the amount of $369,441.12. We 

presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and accordingly we do not discuss 

them in detail here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we 

affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a 

matter of law. Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, 888 F.3d 445, 450 

(9th Cir. 2018). In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Id. 

“Judgment as a matter of law is proper when the evidence permits only one 

reasonable conclusion and the conclusion is contrary to that reached by the jury.” 

Id. (citations and quotations omitted). “We review for abuse of discretion a district 

court’s denial of a Rule 59 motion for a new trial.” Smith v. City and Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 887 F.3d 944, 949 (9th Cir. 2018). “The district court’s denial of the 

motion for a new trial is reversible only if the record contains no evidence in support 

*** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
3 22-55759 

of the verdict.” Molski v. J.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, 

Unique Designs was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying Unique Designs’ motion for a new trial.

1. Unique Designs argues that Strong Trading cannot establish its breach 

of contract claim because there is no evidence showing that Strong Trading was 

harmed by the nonpayment of invoices. According to Unique Designs, Strong 

Trading was not harmed because all the disputed invoices were sent from Strong 

Jewelry (H.K.) Co., Ltd., and all payment was required to be remitted to Strong 

Jewelry.

This argument fails because the evidence at trial showed that payments sent 

to Strong Jewelry were actually paid to Strong Trading. Indeed, Strong Trading’s 

CFO, Amy Chu, testified that, prior to September 2020, Unique Designs remitted

nearly $2 million to Strong Trading through Strong Jewelry. Chu explained that the 

contract required invoices for international shipments to be printed on Strong 

Jewelry letterhead, and payments to be remitted to Strong Jewelry, because of 

customs laws and regulations, see 18 C.F.R. § 141.86, but that invoices were still 

“issued from” Strong Trading. Strong Jewelry simply helps Strong Trading with 

shipping jewelry into the United States. So, while Strong Jewelry might print out 

the final invoice, ship the merchandise, and receive the initial payment, it is still 

Strong Trading that receives final payment. Unique Designs even concedes that 
4 22-55759 

“[Strong Trading] surely made money off of sales from Strong Jewelry to 

customers.” It follows that Unique Designs’ nonpayment of invoices to Strong 

Jewelry did in fact harm Strong Trading.

2. Unique Designs next cites to California Code of Civil Procedure § 367 

to argue that Strong Trading is not “the real party in interest” and thus does not have 

standing to sue. Section 367, which is concerned with a party asserting the “rights 

or interests belonging solely to others,” is inapplicable here. See Yvanova v. New 

Century Mortg. Corp., 365 P.3d 845, 856 (Cal. 2016). Here, Unique Designs 

entered a contract with Strong Trading (and not Strong Jewelry). Further, even 

though invoices were sent on Strong Jewelry letterhead, the underlying contract 

provides that “[i]f payment duties are not fulfilled, Strong Trading (Chong Chong 

Jewelry Group) reserves the right to take legal action or appoint for debt collect 

agency to resolve the matter.” Strong Trading is therefore asserting its own “rights 

and interests” arising under this contract and has standing to sue. See Shulman v. 

Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404, 408 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that an injury in fact may be “one 

arising out of contract”). It is for these very same reasons that Unique Designs’ res 

judicata concerns are unfounded. The contract at issue explicitly provides that 

Strong Trading (and not Strong Jewelry) has the right to sue for nonpayment, and 

the contract provides that it is for “transacting business between [Unique Designs] 

and Strong Trading.” Accordingly, Strong Jewelry would have no right to enforce 
5 22-55759 

the terms of the contract as there is no indication that the “motivating purpose” of 

the contract was for the benefit of a third party. See Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, 

434 P.3d 124, 132-34 (Cal. 2019). The district court properly entered judgment in 

favor of Strong Trading in the exact amount that Strong Trading demanded.

AFFIRMED.