Opinion ID: 526531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Is the District Court's Decision Procedurally

Text: 18 Inadequate? 19 A & M/C argues that the judgment of the district court should be vacated and remanded because its decision is procedurally inadequate. To support this contention, A & M/C makes two arguments: that the district court's findings are skeletal and conclusory, and that the district court's wholesale adoption of the prevailing party's proposed findings was improper. 20
21 In Unt v. Aerospace Corp., we observed that 22 [t]he district court's findings certainly are not well done. They consist mainly of mere conclusions, preceded only by an unhelpful chronology of events. They do not articulate sufficient bases for the trial court's [conclusion]. 23 765 F.2d 1440, 1444 (9th Cir.1985). But we nevertheless upheld the district court findings, noting that despite the factual shortcomings, the basis for the court's decision is clear. The record gives substantial and unequivocal support for the ultimate conclusion ... Id. Although A & M/C criticizes the district court's findings in the instant case, the alleged shortcomings are not nearly as egregious as those described in Unt, a case in which the district court's findings and conclusions were affirmed. 24
25 A & M/C also argues that the decision of the district court should not be affirmed because its conclusions of law were generally taken verbatim from UE & C's Proposed Conclusions of Law. To support its position, A & M/C points to the case of Photo Elecs. Corp. v. England, 581 F.2d 772 (9th Cir.1978). 26 It is true that in Photo Elecs., we stated that the practice of wholesale adoption of the prevailing party's findings has been disapproved, but we did conclude that the practice may be permissible in cases involving highly technical issues. 581 F.2d at 776-77. 27 The fact that the trial judge has adopted proposed findings does not, by itself, warrant reversal. But it does raise the possibility that there was insufficient independent evaluation of the evidence and may cause the losing party to believe that his position has not been given the consideration it deserves. These concerns have caused us to call for more careful scrutiny of adopted findings. 28 Photo Elecs., 581 F.2d at 777 (footnote and citations omitted); see also Kern Oil, 792 F.2d at 1386. Indeed, [t]he verbatim adoption of findings suggested by a party is not automatically objectionable ... so long as those findings are supported by the record. Unt v. Aerospace Corp., 765 F.2d 1440, 1444-45 (9th Cir.1985). When the district court's conclusions are adopted from the prevailing party's suggestions, even though the appellate court is to engage in careful scrutiny, the clearly erroneous standard still applies. Photo Elecs., 581 F.2d at 777. 29 Although the parties dispute the extent to which the district court adopted UE & C's proposed findings verbatim, even A & M/C acknowledges that the district court's conclusions do deviate somewhat from the suggestions of UE & C. This in itself indicates that the district court did not uncritically accept UE & C's proposals. See Clady v. County of Los Angeles, 770 F.2d 1421, 1427 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109, 106 S.Ct. 1516, 89 L.Ed.2d 915 (1986). 30