Opinion ID: 459860
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District Court Calculations

Text: 7 Plaintiffs presented expert testimony that the appropriate pool of potential beneficiaries was all workers on whose behalf employers had made contributions to the trust, whether or not they were career laborers. The trial court chose to apply this formula rather than the one offered by CLPT, presumably because it found plaintiffs' witnesses more persuasive than CLPT's. That judgment is not clearly erroneous and thus is not vulnerable to reversal. See W.S. Shamban & Co. v. Commerce & Industry Insurance Co., 475 F.2d 34, 36 (9th Cir.1973). 8 CLPT did not contradict any of the specific figures which plaintiffs provided to the court. The district court thus had only one set of figures to consider. The district court expressed some hesitation about the precision of plaintiff's statistics, 582 F.Supp. at 1313-15, but in the absence of contrary relevant evidence from CLPT, accepted them as estimates. The final exclusion rate determined by the court was 94.3%. Id. at 1317. This was lower than the figure of 96% provided by plaintiff's expert witness, but was still high enough to be labeled unusually high by the court and thus unreasonable. Better figures may exist which would show the district court's factual conclusions to be clearly erroneous, but CLPT has not produced them at trial or on appeal.