WORLDWIDE SUBSIDY GROUP, LLC, a Texas limited liability company v. Federation International De Football Association

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WORLDWIDE SUBSIDY GROUP, LLC, a
Texas limited liability company,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERATION INTERNATIONAL DE
FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-56033
D.C. No.
2:14-cv-00013-AB-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 20, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: BERZON, CHRISTEN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Worldwide Subsidy Group, LLC (“Worldwide”) alleges it previously
entered into a contract with Fédération Internationale de Football Association
(“FIFA”) to pursue copyright retransmission royalties on its behalf, and that FIFA
* 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).
FILED
JUN 10 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
has breached that contract. FIFA insists no contract exists. After this panel
reversed the district court’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, a jury agreed with
FIFA. Worldwide moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a
new trial, relying on this court’s previous disposition. The district court denied
those motions. Worldwide now appeals the district court’s denial of those motions,
as well as its pre-trial denial of Worldwide’s motion in limine to exclude evidence
of its sole witness’s prior criminal conviction. We affirm.
1. At trial Worldwide had the burden to prove that it had entered into a
contract. See, e.g., Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406,
430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977). And this court has been clear that “[p]retrial rulings,
often based on incomplete information, don’t bind district judges for the remainder
of the case.” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1088 (9th Cir. 2014). Contrary to
Worldwide’s assertion, in contract cases like this one we do not employ the
burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973). Accordingly, FIFA was not, as Worldwide contended, required to
prove the absence of a contract at trial due to our previous holding that Worldwide
had “made a prima facie showing of an enforceable contract.” Worldwide Subsidy
Grp., LLC v. Fed’n Internationale De Football Ass’n, 675 F. App’x 682, 684 (9th
Cir. 2017). Because Worldwide’s argument is entirely premised on the burden-

-- 2 of 3 --

3
shifting framework, it presents no persuasive argument for judgment as a matter of
law or for a new trial.
2. In balancing the probative value of Worldwide’s witness’s prior
conviction for mail fraud against that evidence’s prejudicial effect, as required by
Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b), the district court properly considered five
relevant factors identified by this circuit. See United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761,
768 (9th Cir. 2000). All five of these factors could reasonably be viewed as
counseling for the conviction’s admissibility, so the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Worldwide’s motion in limine.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --