# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 34 61

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Pet er Ki ewit So ns ’, Inc

.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

W a l l S t r e e t E q u i t y G r o u p , I n c

. ; W a l l S t

r e e t G r o u p o f C o m p a n i e s , I n c

. ; S h e p h e r d F r

i e d m a n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

St ev en S. W es t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 17 , 20 15
Fil ed : J an ua ry

6, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Thi s ap pe al ari se s ou t of a tra de m ark in fri ng em en t su it fil ed by Pet er Kiewi t

So ns ’, In c., in whi ch th e di st ric t cou rt fir st en te red a de fau lt ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt s 1

as a sa nc ti on fo r di sc ov ery ab us es , an d th en pr oc eed ed to en te r de fau lt ju dg m en t

ag ai ns t de fen da nt St ev en W es t in th e a mo un t of $9 13 ,09 9.4 6. On ap pe al

, W es t

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g W es t’s m ul ti pl e m ot io ns

to po st po ne th e he ari ng on d a mag es , an d th at it erre d in cal cu la ti ng th e da m ag es
award

. W e ha ve juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U

. S

. C

. § 12 91 an d, fin di ng no erro r in th e
di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng s, we af fir m

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

W es t is a Fl or i d a b us in es sm an who

, al on g wit h hi s bu si ne ss as so ci at e,
Sh ep he rd Fri ed m an , own ed W al l St reet Eq u i t y Gro up , In c., an d W al l St reet Gro up

of Co m pa ni es , In c. All fo ur were su ed in Sep te m be r 20 10 fo r tra de m ark in fri ng em en t by Kiewit , a lar ge co ns tru ct io n a nd m in in g c om pa ny bas ed in Om ah a, Neb ras ka

.

Kiewi t su ed be cau se it ha d le arn ed th at th e de fen da nt s ha d be en co nt act in g
bu si ne ss es an d te ll in g th em Kiewi t was in te res te d in acq ui rin g th em , as lo ng as th ey

su bm it te d t o a v al ua ti on by W es t. In real it y , Kiewi t ha d no co nn ect io n wit h th e
de fe n d a n t s

. The ir pa th s ha d cro ss ed on ly on ce, in 20 08

, whe n Kiewi t was in th e

pr oc es s of acq ui rin g a co m pa ny cal le d Je tt In du st rie s. Afte r Je tt ’s own er res po nd ed

to an ad ve rti se m en t b y

on e o f W es t’s co m

pa ni es , th e co m

pa ny se nt ou t a m as s m ai l

wit h in fo rm at io n ab ou t Je tt to a nu m be r of co m

pa ni es , in cl ud in g Kiewi t. Kiewi t

ex pr es se d i n te res t in bu y in g Je tt

, bu t qu ic kl y real iz ed th at W es t’s co m pa ny ha d no

ex pe rti se on acq ui si ti on s. As a res ul t, Kiewi t pr oc eed ed to wor k di rect ly wit h Je tt ’s

The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Gerra rd

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nebr as ka

.

-2

-own er ov er th e n e x t two to th ree m on th s to co m pl et e th e acq ui si ti on ; W es t an d hi s

co m pa ny pl ay ed no fu rth er ro le

, ap art fro m W es t’s sh owi ng up to co ll ect hi s fee at th e
cl os in g o f th e d eal

.

A nu m be r of th e so l i c it at io ns se nt ou t by th e de fen da nt s of feri ng to va lu at e

co m pa ni es m en ti on ed Kiewi t by na m e. Thi s fo rm ed th e ba si s fo r Kiewi t’s tra de m ark

in fri ng em en t su i t un de r th e Lan ha m Act an d Neb ras ka st at e la w, fo r “ Kiewi t” is a

se rv ic e m ark own ed by Pet er Kiewi t So ns ’, In c. In res po ns e, th e de fen da nt s cl ai m ed

th at th ey ha d on ly us ed th e “ Kiewi t” m ark in so li ci ta ti on s on two oc cas io ns , an d th at

th ey ha d n o a dd it io na l d oc um en ts th at us ed th e wor d “ Kiewi t.”

The se st at em en ts tu rn ed ou t to be fal se , an d in th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t

kn owi ng ly so

. The de fen da nt s in fact po s s e s se d th ou sa nd s of fil es co nt ai ni ng th e

te rm “Ki e w i t

, ” in cl ud in g le tt ers to th ird pa rti es ve ry si m il ar in co nt en t to th e two

so li ci ta ti on s th e de fen da nt s ha d pr ev io us ly ack no wled ge d. Th e d e fen da nt s di d no t

tu rn th es e fil es ov er in di sc ov ery. In st ead

, th ey en ga ge d in a pr ot ract ed cam pa ig n of

ob st ru ct io n an d sp ol ia ti on – wit h W es t go in g so far as to th ro w on e of hi s fil e se rv ers

in a du m ps te r, cl ai m in g th at i t s m ot he rb oa rd was “ fri ed .” In res po ns e to th es e
di sc ov ery ab us es , th e m ag is tra te jud ge in ch arg e of di sc ov ery fo un d th at W es t “ was

no t a be li ev ab le wit ne ss ” an d ha d ex hi bi te d a “ pa tt ern of di sh on es ty un de r oa th ,” an d

th at th e de fen da nt s ha d “ in te nt io na ll y su bm it te d fal se ev id en ce an d te st im on y in ba d

fai th

, co m

m it te d frau d on th is co ur t, an d i n t e n t io na ll y de st ro y ed ev id en ce wit h a
de si re to su pp res s th e tru th in th is cas e.” On her reco m m en da ti on , th e di st ric t cou rt

en te red a de fau lt ag ai ns t each of th e de fen da nt s as a sa nc ti on

. Non e of th e fo reg oi ng

act io ns by the di st ric t co ur t i s co nt es te d o n a pp eal

.

The di st ric t co ur t th en sc he du le d a he ari ng fo r Octo be r 1 1

, 2 0 1 3

, to fu rth er
de ve lo p th e fact ua l reco rd an d de te rm in e th e am ou nt of da m ag es

. In th e week s
le ad in g up to th is da te

, W es t, who by th is ti m e was no lo ng er rep res en te d by co un se l,

fil ed sev eral m ot io ns to po st po ne th e h eari ng

.

-3

-On Sep te m be r 5, 20 13

, W es t fil ed a m ot io n as ki ng to m ov e th e he ari ng to “ an y

Fri da y in Nov em

be r st ar t i n g w i t h t he se co nd Fri da y ” (in ot he r wor ds

, to de la y th e
he a r i n g b y at le as t fo ur week s) to acco m m od at e a m an na m ed Fran k Owen, who m

W es t refe rred to as hi s at to rn ey

. Acco rd in g to W es t, Owen wou ld be un ab le to at te nd

a he ari ng on Octo be r 11 du e to m ul ti pl e m ed ic al op erat io ns , bu t he wou ld be ab le to

“ pa rti ci pa te in a on e d ay

vi de o c on fere nc e tr ia l” by Nov em be r. W es t no te d th at hi s

own he al th as of Octo be r 11 wou ld be un cert ai n du e to un sp eci fie d m ed ic al ai lm en ts

, b u t e m ph as iz ed th at Owen wou ld cl earl y no t be ab le to pa rti ci pa te

. The fo ll o w i n g
da y , th e m ag is tra te jud ge or de red Owen to m ak e a fo rm al ap pe aran ce by Sep te m be r

13

. Th e n , o n Sep te m

be r 11

, W es t fil ed a pr o se “ Mo ti on to Cl ari fy th e Prev io us

Fi li ng ,” ex pl ai ni ng th at he pl an ne d to rep res en t hi m se lf be cau se Owen was no t “ in a

po si ti on to co m

m it hi m se lf to a co nt i n u i n g r el at io ns hi p in th is m at te r ba se d on th e

ec o n o mi c ch al le ng es ” W es t face d. He st at ed th at Owen’s ro le wou ld be li m it ed to

“ pr ov id [in g] [hi m ] wit h p ro ced ur al ad vi ce an d d ire ct io n.”

In res po ns e, th e m ag is tra te jud ge is su ed an or de r de nyin g th e m ot io n to m ov e

th e he ari ng

. The or de r st at ed th at if Owen’s ro le in pr ov id in g le ga l ad vi ce was to be

si gn i f i c a nt en ou gh to req ui re res ch ed ul in g th e he ari ng , he wou ld ne ed to en te r an

ap pe aran ce fo r W es t; ot he rwis e, th e he ari ng wou ld pr oc eed wit ho ut reg ard to Owen’s

av ai la bi li ty. The or de r al so cl ari fie d th at th e he ari ng wou ld no t be a “ on e da y vi de o

tri al ,” bu t wou ld req ui re th e pa rti es to be pr es en t in th e co ur tro om

. Fi na ll y , th e or de r

pe rmi t t e d W es t to re-f

il e hi s m ot io n if he co ul d pr ov id e ev id en ti ary su pp or t fro m a

li cen se d m ed ic al pr ov id er in di cat in g th at W es t wou ld be un ab le to at te nd th e he ari ng

in Om ah a o n Oct ob er 1 1.

On Sep te m

be r 24

, W es t fil ed a se co nd m ot io n se ek in g to po st po ne th e he ari ng

to an un sp eci fie d da te

. Att ach ed to th e m ot i o n w e re th ree le tt ers : on e fro m I. Ja y
Ash er, a ps y ch ot he rap is t, who op in ed th at W es t ha d be en “ ru nn in g in em erg en c y

m od e fo r el ev en y ears ” an d th at “ [a] st res sf ul on e-d ay tri al co ul d be li fe-t hr eat en in g”

to W es t; on e fro m Dr. W il li am A. Abe lo ve , who st at ed th at he ha d be en tre at in g W es t

-4

-fo r es se nt ia l hypert en si on fo r ov er a de cad e an d th at “ [p ]arti ci pa ti on in a hi gh

pr es su re co ur t pr ocee din g co ul d pl ace hi m at in crea se d ris k fo r a m ajor card io va sc ul ar

ev en t” ; an d on e fro m a ps y ch ia tri st na m ed Dr. Ri ch ard W

. Lev in

, who st at e d th at

W es t was su ffer in g fro m se ve re de pr es si on , th at de sp it e tre at m en t hi s pr og res s in th e

pa st two week s ha d be en m in im al

, an d th at a c o ur t ap pe aran ce “ wou ld be ve ry
de le te rio us to hi m

an d h is m en ta l s ta tu s.”

The ne xt da y , th e m ag is tra te jud ge de ni ed hi s se co nd m ot io n, no ti ng th at each

of th e m ed ic al is su es id en ti fie d in th e le t t e r s w a s l on g st an di ng , an d th at th ere was

li tt le po in t in po st po ni ng th e he ari ng whe n th ere was no in di cat io n th at th e co nd it io ns

wou ld im pr ov e in th e fu tu re. Sh e al so po in te d o ut th at ap art fro m th e h y pe rte ns io n

no te d by Dr. Abe lo ve , th e m ed ic al op in io ns ex pr es se d in th e le tt ers wer e la rg el y
ba se d on se lf- rep or ti ng by W es t, an d th at hi s cred ib il it y was su sp ect

. W es t m ov ed

fo r rec on si de rat io n o f th e o rd er a fe w days la te r, whi ch was a ls o d en ie d.

On Octo be r 8, W es t m ov ed fo r th e m ag is tra te jud ge to recu se he rs el f, cl ai m in g

th at sh e was bi as ed ag ai ns t hi m ba se d on he r ru li ng s aga in st hi m

. The sa m e m ot io n

al so co nt ai ne d a r e qu es t to de la y th e he ari ng , wit h a le tt er fro m hi s acu pu nc tu ris t,

Odi n Gut ie rrez , at ta ch ed

. Gut ie rrez – who di d no t id en ti fy as a m ed ic al do ct or –

ex pr es se d th e op in io n th at th ere “ m ay be a hi gh ch an ce of Mr. W es t su ffer in g a se ve re
ad ve rs e m ed ic al ev en t whi ch co ul d be a cat as tro ph ic card io va sc ul ar ev en t” if he were

to pa rti ci pa te in a on e-d ay he ari ng , bu t he be li ev e d th at W es t’s he al th wou ld

“ im pr ov e ag ai n, al lo win g a reas on ab l e am ou nt of ti m e.” The sa m e da y , th e

m ag is tra te jud ge de ni ed th e m ot io n, fin di ng th at sh e di d no t ha rb or bi as ag ai ns t W es t.

Sh e al so de ni ed hi s req ue st to m ov e th e he ari ng , fin di ng th at hi s ac u p u n c t u r i st ’s

op in io n was “ no t a su ffi ci en tl y cert ai n an d rel ia bl e op in io n fro m a qu al ifi ed m ed ic al

pr ov id er” t o war ran t re ve rs in g h er p rio r de ci si on s.

Fi na ll y , du rin g an Octo be r 9, 20 13

, co nf eren ce cal l, W es t or al ly m ov ed a fo ur th

ti m e to de fer th e he ari ng

. Thi s ti m e, th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed a writ te n or de r de nyin g

-5

-th e m ot io n, su g ge st in g th at W es t was effe ct iv el y as ki ng th e co ur t to po st po ne th e

he ari ng in de fin it el y , a n d ex pr es si ng co nc ern th at W es t was at te m pt in g to do so in

or de r to de la y th e ou tc om e of th e cas e. The he ari ng pr oc eed ed on Octo be r 11 as

sc he du le d, wi th ou t an ap pe aran ce b y W es t o r an y on e act in g o n h is be ha lf.

Bas ed on te st im on y at th e he ari ng fro m two Kiewi t em pl oyees an d Fri ed m an ,

as well as th e al le ga ti on s in th e co m pl ai n t

, t h e d is tri ct co ur t fo un d th at Kiewi t ha d

st at ed a cl ai m un de r th e Lan ha m Act an d Neb ras ka st at e la w, an d th at W es t (b ut no t

Fri ed m an ) sh ou ld be he ld pe rs on al ly li ab le fo r al l th e de fen da nt s’ da m ag es , wit ho ut

r e g a r d t o th e no m in al ly se pa rat e le ga l ex is te nc e of th e W al l St reet en ti ti es

. Rec og ni zi ng th at th ere was li tt le ev id en ce to su gg es t th at Kiewi t ha d act ua ll y su ffer ed

ha rm , th e co ur t fo un d it ap pr op ria te to award da m ag es ba se d on th e pr of it s ge ne rat ed
by th e d e f

e n d a nt s fro m th ei r us e of th e Kiewi t m ark

. And reco gn iz in g th at th e
de fen da nt s ha d in te nt io na ll y de st ro y ed ev id en ce th at wou ld pe rm it an a c c ur at e
cal cu la ti on of th ei r il l-g ot te n ga in s, th e co ur t in c r e as ed th e da m ag es award be y on d

th at whi ch co ul d b e p ro ve d b y di rect ev id en ce.

Thu s, th e $1 24 ,91 0 th at was kn own to ha ve be en pa id to th e de fen da nt s ba se d

on so li ci ta ti on s co nt ai ni ng th e Kiewi t m ark was in crea se d to $1 74 ,87 4 to acco un t fo r

fo ur ot he r bu si ne ss es al so kn own to ha ve pa id th e de fen da nt s bas ed on so li ci ta ti on s

co nt ai ni ng th e Kiewi t m ark

. Bec au se th e am ou nt th e s e f o u r bu si ne ss es pa id th e
de fen da nt s was unk no wn, the co ur t ass um ed th at each bu si ne ss pa id th e de fen da nt s

th e av erag e am ou nt pa id by th e bu si ne ss es who se pa y m en ts were kn own

. And th en , ba se d on a su gg es ti on fro m Kiewi t th at th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d “ reas on ab le al m os t to

a f a u l t

, ” th is am ou nt was in tu rn tri pl ed to $5 24 ,62 2 to acco un t fo r pa y m en ts fro m

un kn own bu si ne ss es th at co ul d no t be pr ov ed du e to de fen da nt s’ sp ol ia ti on of

ev id en ce. Fi na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t award ed an ad di ti on al $3 88 ,47 7.4 6 in at to rn ey ’s

fees an d c os ts , and en te red a pe rm an en t i nju nc ti on ag ai ns t t he de fen da nt s.

W es t t im el y

fil ed an ap pe al

.

-6

-II . Dis cus si on

W es t’s fir st ch al le ng e is to th e di st ric t co ur t’s refu sa l to po st po ne th e he ari ng

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a de ferm en t fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, Farm ers

Co -o p Co

. v. Sen sk e & So n Tran sf er Co

., 57 2 F.3 d 49 2, 49 9 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 9 )

, an d

co nc lu de th at no su ch ab us e oc cu rred he re. The d i s t ric t co ur t was jus ti fie d in

de cl in in g to m ov e th e he ari ng ba se d on W es t’s cl ai m ed m ed ic al pr ob le m s whe n it was gi ve n no cred ib le ev id en ce tha t th e pr ob le m s co ul d be res ol ve d wit hi n an y co nc ret e

ti m e fram e, no r an y reas on why su ch a ti m e f r a me c o u l d no t be de te rm in ed

. See

Jo hn so n v. Po tt er, 36 4 F. App ’x 1 59

, 16 3 (5 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ [The pl ai nt iff ] so ug ht a

co nt in ua nc e so le ly on th e ba si s of a le t t e r fro m he r do ct or , an d th e le tt er ga ve no

in di cat io n whe n, if e v e r , [ s h e ] wou ld be av ai la bl e fo r tri al

. If th e di st ric t co ur t ha d

no t de ni ed t h e m ot io n, it m ig ht ha ve wait ed in de fin it el y fo r [h er] to be read y fo r

tri al .”).

W es t co un te rs th at he req ue st ed on ly a fo ur -week de ferr al

, du rin g whi ch ti m e

hi s do ct or s wou ld be ab le to res to re hi m to he al th

. Bu t no ne of th e le tt ers he at ta ch ed

to hi s m ot io ns su gg es te d th at hi s he al th co ul d be im pr ov ed in fo ur week s. In de ed

, hi s

in it ia l Sep te m

be r 5 m ot io n in di cat es th at he as ke d fo r fo ur ad di ti on al week s ba se d on

th e un av ai la bi li ty of Owen

, th e at to rn ey who se ai d he ho pe d to en li st

. And on e of th e
le tt ers he pr ov id ed
– th e on e su bm it te d by Dr. Lev in – st at ed wit h resp ect to W es t’s

tre at m en t th at “ [p ]rog res s in th e pa st two week s ha s b een m in im al ,” cas ti ng fu rth er
do ub t on an y cl ai m th at W es t’s m ed ic al is su es were te m po rary in na tu re an d co ul d be

acco m m od at ed by a po st po ne m en t o f reas on ab le len gt h.

To th is m us t be ad de d th e fact th at bo th th e di st ric t co ur t an d t h e mag i s tra te jud ge were cl earl y sk ep ti cal of W es t’s cred ib il it y ba se d on th ei r ex pe rie nc e wit h hi m
du rin g th e di sc ov e r y pr oc es s. The y were en ti tl ed to rel y on th is ex pe rie nc e in

ev al ua ti ng th e m ot iv es be hi nd W es t’s m ot i o n s t o de la y th e he ari ng , th e ve raci ty of

-7

-W es t’s cl ai m ed ai lm en ts

, an d ev en th e le tt ers fro m m ed ic al pr of es si on al s, to th e

ex te nt th ey were ba se d on W es t’s own se lf- rep or ti ng

. See W at so n v. Mi ears , 77 2

F.2 d 43 3, 43 7 (8t h Cir. 19 85 ). In li gh t of the se co ns id erat io ns , we can no t con cl ud e

th at th e d is tri ct co ur t or th e m ag is tra te jud ge ab us ed th ei r di sc ret io n in de cl in in g t o
de la y th e h eari ng

.

W es t al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by no t de d uc ti ng ov erh ead an d

op erat in g co st s fro m it s cal cu la ti on of de fen da nt s’ pr of it s. The in it ia l pr ob le m wit h

th is arg um en t is th at

, as W es t ad m it s, he ne ve r rai se d it be fo re th e di st r ic t co ur t.

“ Ord in ari ly, we do no t co ns id er an arg um en t rais ed fo r th e fir st ti m e o n a pp eal . W e

co ns id er a ne wly rai se d arg um en t on ly if it is pu rel y le ga l an d req ui res no ad di ti on al

fact ua l de ve lo pm en t, or if a m a n i f e st in jus ti ce wou ld ot he rwis e res ul t.” Orr v.

W al -Ma rt S to res , Inc ., 29 7 F .3d 72 0, 7 25 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

W es t arg ue s th at th e fi rs t o f th es e two ex cep ti on s i s s at is fie d h ere, be cau se it

can be gl ean ed fro m Fri ed m an ’s te st im on y at th e he ari ng th at so m e of th e pa y m en ts

th e d efen da nt s re cei ve d wen t t owa rd s o pe rat in g c os ts an d o ve rh ead :

Q. W ere th e m on ie s th at th e co m pa ny rai se d by se ll in g th es e va lu at io ns

us ed to pa y

th e st aff?

A. The y were us ed to pa y th e st aff. Gen eral ly sp eak in g, th ey were us ed

to pa y th e, qu ot e, ov erh ead

.

. . . Q. And th es e di ffer en t fees t h a t w ere rai se d by th e co m pa ny were to

op erat e th e o ffi ce s o t o s pe ak ?

A. Co rrec t.

Bu t th is te st im on y al on e do es no t al lo w us to de du ct th e co rrec t am ou nt of op erat in g

co st s an d ov erh ead fro m th e to ta l da m ag es award ed by th e di st ric t co ur t. Fri ed m an ’s

te st im on y su gg es ts th at – as on e m ig ht ex pe ct – so m e of th e m on ey acq ui red th ro ug h

-8

-th e us e of th e Kiewi t m ark m ay ha ve be en us ed fo r op erat in g co st s an d ov erh ead

, bu t

we ha ve no id ea ho w m

uc h of it was

. Si nc e pr ov in g th e am ou nt of th es e co st s was

W es t’s bu rd en , Ton ka Co rp

. v. Ton k- A

- P h o ne , In c., 80 5 F.2 d 79 3, 79 4 (8 th Ci r.

19 86 ) ( p e r c u r i a m ), an d he can no t do so wit ho ut fu rth er fact ua l de ve lo pm en t, we

c a n no t ad dr es s fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al hi s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t c o u r t

im pr op erl y fai le d t o d ed uc t o pe rat in g c os ts an d o ve rh ead

.

W es t al so se iz es up on a st ray co m m en t by th e di st ric t co ur t th at “ [i]t is th e

Co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at un de r th e c irc um st an ces of th is cas e, th e de fen da nt s’

li ab i l i t y w a s no t reas on ab ly cap ab le of as cert ai nm en t, an d th e Co ur t’s award is

su ffi ci en t to m ak e Kiewi t who le .” W es t arg ue s th at th e refe ren ce to “ m ak [in g] Kiewi t

who le ” sh ows th at th e d is tri ct co ur t i m pr op erl y vi ewed it s d is go rg em en t re m ed y as

co m pe ns at or y

. W e th in k a read in g of th at st at em en t in co nt ex t pu ts th at cl ai m to res t:

th e pr ev io us ly-des cri be d m et ho do lo gy u se d by t h e d i s t r ic t co ur t fo r cal cu la ti ng th e
da m ag es award was ad m ira bl y tra ns pa ren t, an d do es no t r e v e a l an y im pr op er

co m pe ns at or y pu rp os e.

Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-