842 F. 2d 1294 - Broad v. Rainbow Bridge Inc
842 F2d 1294 Broad v. Rainbow Bridge Inc
842 F.2d 1294
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Victor W. BROAD, Lead Underwriter for Those Certain
Underwriters at Lloyds, London Subscribing to
Policy Nos. HJE1067 and OM002370,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
RAINBOW BRIDGE, INC., a California corporation; Rainbow
Tours, Inc., a California corporation, and Alwyn
N. Jarreau, an individual, Defendants- Appellees.
No. 86-6715.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted: March 8, 1988.
Decided: March 18, 1988.
Before PREGERSON, WIGGINS and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
ORDER*
Reviewing the jury verdict in favor of the appellees under the substantial evidence standard, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence before the jury that reasonable minds could accept as adequate to support their conclusion. Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1014 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1059 (1986). Although the jury instructions were contested below, because the appellant has not sought appellate review of the correctness of these instructions, we decline to now reach that issue. Additionally, the jury's damage award is supported by substantial evidence and, accordingly, will not be disturbed. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753, 760 (9th Cir.1985).
Finally, we uphold the trial court's award of pre-judgment interest because it does not amount to an abuse of discretion. United States Dominator v. Factor Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir.1985).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3