Hannibal Pictures, Inc. v. Sonja Productions LLC ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                MAY 11 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    HANNIBAL PICTURES, INC., a                      No. 09-56584
    California corporation,
    D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01814-WDK-
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             VBK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    SONJA PRODUCTIONS LLC, a
    Delaware limited liability company;
    SONJA TREMONT-MORGAN, an
    individual,
    Defendants - Appellants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    William D. Keller, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted April 15, 2011
    Pasadena, California
    Before: D.W. NELSON, W. FLETCHER**, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    ** After argument, Chief Judge Kozinski recused himself from
    participation in this case. Judge W. Fletcher was drawn in his place, has listened to
    the arguments, and considered the briefs of the parties.
    After a ten-day trial, a jury returned a verdict against Defendants-Appellants
    Sonja Productions LLC and Sonja Tremont-Morgan, finding them liable for breach
    of contract, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation, and awarding
    Plaintiff-Appellee Hannibal Pictures (“Hannibal”) $6,816,294 for past and future
    economic losses. Defendants appeal orders from the district court denying motions
    for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial or remittitur.
    Defendants argue that under California’s economic loss rule, Hannibal
    should not have been permitted to recover under its tort claims. The district court
    properly denied this motion. Under California law, tort damages may accompany
    contract claims when “the duty that gives rise to tort liability is either completely
    independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both intentional and
    intended to harm.” Erlich v. Menezes, 
    981 P.2d 978
    , 983 (Cal. 1999). The
    California Supreme Court has declined to apply the economic loss rule to fraud and
    misrepresentation claims where, as here, one party has lied to the other. See
    Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 
    102 P.3d 268
    , 275 (Cal. 2004). Robinson
    Helicopter controls this case. Hannibal was not precluded from suing the
    defendants for fraud and negligent misrepresentation in addition to breach of
    contract.
    2
    Nor was the jury’s award of damages excessive. Under California law,
    damages for “anticipated profits dependent on future events are allowed where
    their nature and occurrence can be shown by evidence of reasonable reliability.”
    Kids’ Universe v. In2Labs, 
    116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 158
    , 168 (Ct. App. 2002). Such
    damages “may be established with reasonable certainty with the aid of expert
    testimony, economic and financial data, market surveys and analyses, business
    records of similar enterprises, and the like.” Parlour Enters., Inc. v. Kirin Grp.,
    Inc., 
    61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 243
    , 249 (Ct. App. 2007) (citation omitted). “Expert
    testimony alone is a sufficient basis for an award of lost profits . . . when the expert
    opinion is supported by tangible evidence with a substantial and sufficient factual
    basis rather than by mere speculation and hypothetical situations.” 
    Id. at 250
    (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Hannibal introduced into
    evidence preliminary agreements with international distributors that could have
    been worth over $6 million and testimony that, had Fast Flash to Bang Time been
    completed, Hannibal could have received millions of dollars in sales commissions.
    Hannibal also turned down a commitment from a bank to finance the movie.
    Accordingly, the jury’s award of damages was supported by sufficient evidence.
    See Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 
    481 F.3d 724
    , 729 (9th Cir. 2007).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-56584

Judges: Nelson, Fletcher, Bybee

Filed Date: 5/11/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2024