MOTOROLA, INC., FKA Motorola Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation v. HAROLD PICK, DBA C. Donnelly Communications, DBA Radio Design, an individual

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOTOROLA, INC., FKA Motorola
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HAROLD PICK, DBA C. Donnelly
Communications, DBA Radio Design, an
individual,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-55312
D.C. No.
2:04-cv-02655-JFW-SH
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
NOV 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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.

-- 1 of 2 --

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

-- 2 of 2 --