MOTOROLA, INC. V. HAROLD PICK, No. 16-55312 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 22 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTOROLA, INC., FKA Motorola Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-55312 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-02655-JFW-SH v. MEMORANDUM* HAROLD PICK, DBA C. Donnelly Communications, DBA Radio Design, an individual, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 13, 2017** Pasadena, California Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and PARKER,*** Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. Defendant Harold Pick (“Pick”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate a renewal of judgment in favor of Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“MSI”). We affirm. The district court correctly concluded MSI had standing to seek renewal of the judgment against Pick. It was not necessary for Motorola, Inc. to execute a separate assignment of its rights in the judgment to MSI because this automatically occurred as an operation of Delaware law. 8 Del Code § 259 (a) (“when any merger . . . shall become effective under this chapter. . . . all debts due to any of [the] constituent corporations . . . shall be vested in the corporation surviving or resulting from such merger”). To the extent Pick argued it was possible the judgment against him had already been transferred to another entity prior to the merger, MSI properly controverted this speculation with a sworn affidavit in opposition to Pick’s motion to vacate the renewal. Finally, the district court sufficiently articulated reasons in support of its decision by incorporating by reference the arguments set forth in MSI’s opposition. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
