Newman v. Physical Electronics, Inc.

Full title: Lawrence A. NEWMAN, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. PHYSICAL ELECTRONICS, INC., a…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 19, 2001

22 F. App'x 810 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

22 Fed.Appx. 810 (9th Cir. 2001) Lawrence A. NEWMAN, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. PHYSICAL ELECTRONICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant--Appellee. No. 00-35319. D.C. No. CV-99-00147-EJL. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. November 19, 2001

Submitted September 13, 2001 ^*.

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KOZINSKI and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge. ^**

** The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ^***

*** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Viewing the agreement as a whole, we agree with the district court that the phrase "change in business conditions" was not ambiguous. See St. Clair v. Krueger, 115 Idaho 702, 769 P.2d 579, 582 (Idaho 1989). Therefore, the contract's interpretation is a question of law. See Ada County Assessor v. Taylor, 124 Idaho 550, 861 P.2d 1215, 1218 (Idaho 1993). Uncontroverted evidence showed that Physical Electronics had suffered a major loss of business. The district court correctly held that this amounted to a "change in business conditions," giving Physical Electronics the right to terminate Newman's employment.

AFFIRMED.