11-2751-cv(L)11-2930-cv(XAP)11-3120-cv(CON)

The Barton Group, Inc. v. NCR Corporation

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST

SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 23rd 4 day of April, two thousand twelve.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 Chief Judge,

9 AMALYA L. KEARSE,

10 PETER W. HALL

11 Circuit Judges.

12

13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

14 The Barton Group, Inc.,

15 Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant16 Appellee-Cross-Appellant,

17 11-2751-cv(L)

18 -v.- 11-2930-cv(XAP)

19 11-3120-cv(CON)

20 NCR Corporation,

21 Defendant-Counter-Claim-ClaimantAppellant-Cross-Appellee.* 22

23

24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

25

* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official

caption as shown above.

1
1 Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant2 Appellee-Cross-Appellant: Sean C. Sheely, Holland

3 & Knight LLP, New York,

4 NY.

5

6 Defendant-Counter-Claim-Claimant7 Appellant-Cross-Appellee: Ira C. Greenberg,

8 Edwards Angell Palmer &

9 Dodge LLP, New York,

10 NY.

11

12 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New York (Maas, M.J.).1 13

14

15 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

16 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is

17 AFFIRMED.

18

19 This matter comes to us from a judgment entered after a

20 jury verdict. Defendant-Counter-Claim-Claimant-Appellant21 Cross-Appellee, NCR Corporation, appeals from the judgment

22 of the district court, awarding Plaintiff-Counter-Claim23 Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, The Barton Group, Inc.,

24 $8,018,667.00 in damages and $463,603.42 in prejudgment

25 interest. The Barton Group appeals from the district

26 court’s decision denying its request for equitable relief. 

27 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying

28 factual allegations, the procedural history of the case, and

29 the issues on appeal.

30 We review the district court’s denial of NCR

31 Corporation’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of

32 law de novo. Hydro Invs., Inc. v. Trafalgar Power Inc., 227

33 F.3d 8, 15 (2d Cir. 2000). We accept the parties’ agreement

34 that we review the district court’s denial of The Barton

35 Group’s request for equitable relief for abuse of

discretion.2 36

1 The parties consented to adjudication of this suit

by Magistrate Judge Maas. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

2 We express no opinion as to our standard of review of

the district court’s denial of The Barton Group’s request

for equitable relief.

2
1 We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the

2 district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

3 We have considered all of the parties’ additional

4 arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly,

5 the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

6

7 FOR THE COURT: 

8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

9

10

3