N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LA JOLLA SPA M D, INC .,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. TR AVELER S PR O PER TY C ASUALTY C OM PANY OF AM ER IC A,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-55910 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-02389-GPC -W VG
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gonz a lo P. C urie l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 8, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, PAEZ, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt La Jolla Spa M D, Inc . a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing its motion for a

ne w tria l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291.

“ W e re vie w a

distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a

m otion for a

ne w tria l unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 59(a ) for an a buse of disc re tion.” Molsk i v . M.J . C able , 

# FIL ED MAR 20 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.Inc
. , 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th C ir. 2007). “ For us to re ve rse a de c ision a s an a

buse of disc re tion, we m

ust ha ve a de finite and firm

c onvic tion tha

t the distric t c o urt
c om m itte d a c l e ar e rror of judgm e nt in thec onc lusion it re a c h e d .” Grand C any o n Sk y w alk De v ., LLC

v . ‘Sa’N y u W a Inc
. , 715 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th C i r. 2013) (c ita tion omitte d). In C a lifornia , “ [w] h e the r the writte n c ontra c t is re a sona

bly
susc e ptible of a

proffe re d m e aning is a

m atte r of la

w tha t is re vie w e d de novo.” Brinde rson-N

e w b e rg J oint Ve nture

v . Pac . Ere c tors, Inc
. , 971 F.2d 272, 277 (9th C ir. 1992). W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s rulings. 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng the m otion for a n e w tria l ba se d on its e vide ntia ry rulings. First, the

distric t c ourt did not err by a d m itting e m a ils e xc ha

nge d by the divorc e attorne y s for Dia nne York a

n d M itc he l Goldm an. York’ s and Goldm an’ s m arita l se ttle m e nt a gre e m e n t wa s am biguous a nd re a sona

bly susc e ptible to the m e aning proffe re d by De fe ndantAppe l le e Trave le rs Prope rty C a sua lty C om pa ny of Am e ric a , a

nd the e m a ils we re re le va nt to provetha

t m e aning. Se e W

ine t v . Pric e , 6 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 554, 557 (C t. App. 1992) (“ If in light of the e xtrinsic e vide nc e the c ourt de c ide s the la ngua ge is

‘ re a sona bly susc e ptible ’ to the inte rpre tation urge d, the e x trinsic e vide nc e is the n a dm itte d to a id in these c ond step— inte rpre ting thec ontra c t.” ); se e also Mulle r v . Auto. C lub of S. C

al. , 71 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 573, 581 (C t. App. 1998) (c o nc luding tha t
2the w ord “ inc lude s ” m ay be e xpa nsive or lim iting), disapprov e d of on othe r grounds by

C olme nare s v . Brae mar C

ountry C lub, Inc
. , 63 P.3d 220 (C a l. 2003). Se c ond, e ve n if the distric t c ourt e rre d by a llowing Goldm

an to te s tify

a bout his subje c tive inte rpre tation of the m arita l se ttle m e nt a gre e m e n t, a ny e rror wa s not substa ntia lly pre judic ia l, be c a

use : (1) La Jolla

Spa inc lude d a

disc ussion of York’ s subje c tive inte rpre tat ion of the m arita l se ttle m e nt a gre e m e n t in its opening sta te m e nt; (2) York te stifie d to he r own subje c tive inte rpre tation; a nd (3) the distric t c o urt prope rly

a dm itte d the divorc e attorne y s’ e m a ils a s we ll a s e vide nc e of York’ s a nd Goldm an’ s post-se ttle m e nt c onduc t. Se e Ruv alc aba v . C ity of Los Ange le s , 64 F.3d 1323, 1328 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ A ne wtria l is only wa rrante d whe n an e rrone ous e vide ntia

ry ruling substa

ntia lly pre j udic e d a pa rty .” (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d)). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng the m otion for a n e w tria l ba se d on the c le ar we ight of the e vide nc e . The re wa s e vide nc e supporting the

jury ’ s ve rdic t tha

t La Jolla Spa

did not e sta

blish tha t it sustaine d a
c ove re d loss. Se e Molsk

i , 481 F.3d a

t 729 (“ The distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the
m otion for a

ne w tria l is re ve rsible only if the re c ord c onta ins no e vide nc e in support of theve rdic t . . . . B e c a use de te rm ining thec le ar we ight of thee vide nc e is

3a

fa c t-spe c ific e nde avor, a

ppe a ls c ourts a

re re luc ta nt to se c ond-gue ss distric t
c ourts’ c o nc lusions.” (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d)). AFFIRM E D.

4