Case Name: MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Texas corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT, INC., a Maryland corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-09
Citations: 639 F. App'x 506
Docket Number: No. 15-15815
Parties: MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Texas corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT, INC., a Maryland corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 639
Pages: 506–508

Head Matter:
MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Texas corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT, INC., a Maryland corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-15815.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 22, 2016.
Filed May 9, 2016.
Sara M. Berry, Holland & Hart LLP, Boise, ID, Michael Maloney, Holland & Hart LLP, Washington, DC, Stephen G. Masciocchi, Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, CO, Rodolfo Parga, Jr., Esquire, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Daniel P. Quigley, Esquire, Rebecca Van Doren, Cohen Kennedy Dowd & Quigley, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, Benjamin G. Shatz, Ma-natt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Management and Engineering Technologies International, Inc. ("METI"), appeals the district court's entry of judgment in its favor in the amount of $67,143.00. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural history, we will not recount it here.
METI reads restrictions into our prior mandate that simply are not there. We vacated the damages award and remanded for further proceedings, without limitation as to what those proceedings might be. The mandate did not clearly, or by necessary implication, preclude the district court from allowing relitigation of the damages award. See United States v. Thrasher, 483 F.3d 977, 981 (9th Cir.2007). The district court limited the new trial to damages only, and thus did not violate the rule of mandate or the law of the case.
In the new damages trial, the district court did not commit clear error. The district court heard expert testimony from both parties and found the Information Systems Support, Inc. ("ISS"), experts more persuasive and credible. METI's criticism of the district court's findings relies on a selective reading of the record. The district court's general conclusion that "METI's trade secrets had moderate economic value to ISS" was adequately explained and supported by the evidence. Each side shall bear its own costs.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.