NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WORLDWIDE SUBSIDY GROUP, LLC, a 

Texas limited liability company, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

FEDERATION INTERNATIONAL DE 

FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-56033 

D.C. No. 

2:14-cv-00013-AB-JC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 20, 2019**

San Francisco, California

Before: BERZON, CHRISTEN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Worldwide Subsidy Group, LLC (“Worldwide”) alleges it previously 

entered into a contract with Fédération Internationale de Football Association 

(“FIFA”) to pursue copyright retransmission royalties on its behalf, and that FIFA 

 

* 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

JUN 10 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

has breached that contract. FIFA insists no contract exists. After this panel 

reversed the district court’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, a jury agreed with 

FIFA. Worldwide moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a 

new trial, relying on this court’s previous disposition. The district court denied 

those motions. Worldwide now appeals the district court’s denial of those motions, 

as well as its pre-trial denial of Worldwide’s motion in limine to exclude evidence 

of its sole witness’s prior criminal conviction. We affirm.

1. At trial Worldwide had the burden to prove that it had entered into a 

contract. See, e.g., Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 

430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977). And this court has been clear that “[p]retrial rulings, 

often based on incomplete information, don’t bind district judges for the remainder 

of the case.” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1088 (9th Cir. 2014). Contrary to 

Worldwide’s assertion, in contract cases like this one we do not employ the 

burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 

U.S. 792 (1973). Accordingly, FIFA was not, as Worldwide contended, required to 

prove the absence of a contract at trial due to our previous holding that Worldwide 

had “made a prima facie showing of an enforceable contract.” Worldwide Subsidy 

Grp., LLC v. Fed’n Internationale De Football Ass’n, 675 F. App’x 682, 684 (9th 

Cir. 2017). Because Worldwide’s argument is entirely premised on the burden-
3 

shifting framework, it presents no persuasive argument for judgment as a matter of 

law or for a new trial.

2. In balancing the probative value of Worldwide’s witness’s prior 

conviction for mail fraud against that evidence’s prejudicial effect, as required by 

Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b), the district court properly considered five 

relevant factors identified by this circuit. See United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761, 

768 (9th Cir. 2000). All five of these factors could reasonably be viewed as 

counseling for the conviction’s admissibility, so the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Worldwide’s motion in limine.

AFFIRMED.