N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOEY LONG,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. AUTHENTIC ATHLETIX, LLC ; PETER J. SC HAFFER ,

De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts. No. 18-17061

D.C . No. 3:16-c v-03129-JSC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Ja c que line Sc ott C orle y , M a gistra te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d April 16, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd FER NANDEZ a

nd W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s . This bre a c h of c ontra c t a c tion a rise s out of a

n a lle ge d a g re e m e nt be twe e n Joe y Long a n d sports a ge nc y

Authe ntic Athle tix, LLC and Pe te r Sc ha ffe r, its 

# FIL ED APR 20 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).founde r and pre s ide nt (toge the r, “ De fe nda nts” ). As thepa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with the re c ord, we ne e d not re c ite it in a ny de ta il. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs. 1. First, thedistric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing De fe nda nts’ m otion to dism iss for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic t ion. Long wa s re quire d only to “ m ak e a

prim a fa c i e showing of jurisdictiona l fa c ts” to withsta n d the m otion. Sc h w arze n e gge r v . Fre d Martin Motor C

o. , 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th C ir. 2004) (quoting She r v . J ohnson , 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th C i r. 1990)); se ealso Pe te rson v . Highland Music , Inc
. , 140 F.3d 1313, 1319 (9th C ir. 1998). On the fa c ts found by

the distric t
c ourt, Long m a de a

prim a fa c ie showing tha

t De fe nda nts purpose fully

ava ile d the m se l ve s “ of the privile g e of c onduc ting a c tivitie s in C a l ifornia ” and tha t his
c la im s a rose out of De fe nda

nts’ C a lifornia -re lat e d a c tivitie s. Sc hw arze ne g ge r , 374 F.3d at 802. W e a lso a ffirm tha t e xe rc ising jurisdiction wa s “ re a sona ble ” for the
re a s ons sta

te d by the distric t c ourt. 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing De fe n da nts’ re ne we d

m otion for judgm e nt a s a

m atte r of la

w unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 50(b). “ [A] prope r post-ve rdic t R ule 50(b) m otion is lim

ite d to thegrounds a s se rte d in thepre -de libe ration R ule 50(a ) m otion.” E

EOC v . Go Daddy

Softw are , Inc ., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th C ir. 2009). Vie wing thee vide nc e in the light most fa vora ble to the nonm oving pa

rty , we re vie w“ whe t

he r the e vide nc e pe rm i ts only one re a sona

ble c onc lusion, a

nd tha t
2c onc lusion is c ontra ry to the jury ’ s ve rdic t.” J

ose phs v
. Pac
. Be ll , 443 F.3d 1050, 1062 (9th C ir. 2006). Grounds not ra ise d in a R u le 50(a ) m otion a

re re v ie we d for pla i n e rror, and re ve rsa l is wa rrante d only if “ suc h pla in e rror would re sult in a
m anife s t m isc arria ge of justic e .” Go Daddy Softw are , Inc ., 581 F.3d a

t 961 (quoting J

ane s v . W al–Mart Store

s, Inc
. , 279 F.3d 883, 888 (9th C i r. 2002)). 3. The sta

tute of lim ita

tions doe s not ba

r Long’ s c la im s. The jury found the
a lle ge d a g re e m e nt wa s “ founde d upon a writte n instrum e nt.” A re a sona ble trie rof-fa c t c ould m ake suc h a finding ba se d on e vide nc e of the pa rtie s’ e m a il e xc ha

nge
and De fe nda

nts’ c onduc t following the s e e xc ha nge s. Se eAme n v . Me rc e d C ty . Title C o. , 58 C a l. 2d 528, 532 (1962). An a c tion on a c ontra c t “ founde d upon a n instrum e nt in writing”

m ust be c om

m e nc e d within four y e ars a fte r a c c rua l. C a l. C ode C iv. P. § 337(a). Long file d his a c tion within thre e y e a rs of the a c t ion’ s
a c c rua l da

te . For the sa

m e re a sons, the re wa s no pla in e rror in the jury ’ s finding that a c ontra c t wa s form e d. Se eGo Daddy Softw are , Inc ., 581 F.3d a

t 961–62. 4. The sta

tute of fra uds doe s not ba

r Long’ s c la im s. B a se d

on the e vide nc e pre s e nte d at tria l, a

re a sona ble trie r-of-fa c t c ould find tha t the a gre e m e nt, by

its te rm s, c ould ha

ve be e n pe rform e d within a y e ar. Se eW

h ite Lighting C

o. v . W olfson , 68 C a l. 2d 336, 341, 344 (1968).

35. The distric t c ourt did not err in its e vide ntia ry rulings, whic h

we re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion. U

nite d State

s v . Ev ans , 728 F.3d 953, 959 (9th C ir. 2013). Thele tte r De fe n da nts sought to re ly

on wa s he arsay

and fa lls unde r no e xc e ption. Se e Fe d. R
. Evid. 801. Further, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny i ng e vide nc e re late d to “ o ffse t va lue s,” a s De fe nda nts fa ile d to produc e that e vide nc e in re s ponse to Long’ s disc ove ry re que sts. Se eFe d. R . C iv. P. 26, 37. AFFIRM E D.

4