Unpublished Disposition, 898 F.2d 156 (9th Cir. 1982)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 898 F.2d 156 (9th Cir. 1982)

Gerald S. MAYKUTH, d/b/a Bighorn Beverage, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.ADOLPH COORS COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-4002.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 1989.1Decided March 23, 1990.

Before WALLACE and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge:

MEMORANDUM2 

This is an appeal from the district court's denial of tort, punitive and consequential damages. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This is an appeal of a final judgment of the district court and thus this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

In 1978 the Adolph Coors Company ("Coors") terminated its beer distributorship agreement ("the contract") with appellant Gerald S. Maykuth ("Maykuth"). Maykuth subsequently filed suit against Coors, alleging four causes of action: breach of contract, violation of a Montana dealer-protection statute, and two antitrust claims. At the trial in September 1980, the Honorable James F. Battin found that Coors was not liable and entered judgment against Maykuth on all four counts.

Maykuth appealed, and on October 19, 1982 another panel of this court affirmed the district court with respect to the antitrust claims, but reversed with regard to the breach of contract and statutory violation claims. Accordingly, the case was remanded for a determination of damages. Maykuth v. Adolph Coors Co., 690 F.2d 689 (9th Cir. 1982). On remand, the district court held that Maykuth was not entitled to damages on either remaining claim.

Maykuth then appealed the district court's finding of no damages. He argued that this court's finding of liability entitled him to tort, punitive, and consequential damages for the statutory violation and to buy-out damages for the breach of contract. On this second appeal, the same panel held that Maykuth was entitled to damages under the buy-out provision of the contract. Specifically, the court stated that

[t]he decision of the district court denying Maykuth damages is vacated, and the case remanded for enforcement of p VIII(2) [the buy out provision]. REMANDED.


Maykuth v. Adolph Coors Co., 820 F.2d 303, 308 (9th Cir. 1987) (footnote omitted) (Maykuth II) . The case was thus again remanded to the district court.

On remand from Maykuth II, the district court awarded Maykuth $130,833 in damages pursuant to the contract's buy-out provision. Maykuth continued to argue for additional tort, punitive, and consequential damages for violation of the Montana statute. The district court rejected these arguments, finding that the issue of additional damages was beyond the scope of remand. Maykuth is now appealing this denial of additional damages.

* * *

* * *

The sole issue before us is whether the district court followed this court's mandate issued in Maykuth II. The district court is required to strictly comply with the mandate of the appellate court. In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255 (1895); In re Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1984). Although the opinion in Maykuth II was somewhat ambiguous, the mandate was clear. As noted above, the district court was instructed to enforce the buy-out provision of the contract. That clause provided that in the event that Coors terminated the distributor, the distributor could require Coors to purchase certain assets of the distributorship upon certain terms provided for in the contract. Thus, on remand, the district court was to compute and award damages pursuant to that provision. This is exactly what the district court did. Thus, we find that the district court complied with the mandate in Maykuth II.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.1 The Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

 2

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

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.