Narrative Opinion Summary
Praxair Distribution, Inc. appeals the district court's decisions, which included denying Praxair's Motion for Summary Judgment, granting partial summary judgment in favor of William G. Creelman on his breach of contract claim, and ruling in Creelman's favor after trial on remaining issues. The court determined that Praxair did not present a material question of fact regarding the modification of Creelman's employment agreement or any offset or mitigation provisions contained within it. As a result, the denial of Praxair's motion and the granting of Creelman's motion were upheld. The district court's factual findings that led to Creelman's judgment were not deemed clearly erroneous. The appeal outcome was affirmed, and the disposition is not intended for publication or citation in courts within the circuit, except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Breach of Contract Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Creelman on his breach of contract claim, indicating the court found sufficient grounds to rule in Creelman's favor without a need for further factual determinations.
Reasoning: The district court's decisions included ... granting partial summary judgment in favor of William G. Creelman on his breach of contract claim.
Factual Findings and Appellate Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the district court's factual findings, indicating they were not clearly erroneous, and affirmed the judgment in Creelman's favor.
Reasoning: The district court's factual findings that led to Creelman's judgment were not deemed clearly erroneous.
Non-Publication and Citation Rulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal disposition is not intended for publication or citation in courts within the circuit, except as permitted by specific rules.
Reasoning: The appeal outcome was affirmed, and the disposition is not intended for publication or citation in courts within the circuit, except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's denial of Praxair's Motion for Summary Judgment was based on the absence of a material question of fact regarding the employment agreement's modification.
Reasoning: The court determined that Praxair did not present a material question of fact regarding the modification of Creelman's employment agreement or any offset or mitigation provisions contained within it.