11-2751-cv(L)11-2930-cv(XAP)11-3120-cv(CON) The Barton Group, Inc. v. NCR Corporation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 23rd day of April, two thousand twelve.

6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 AMALYA L. KEARSE, 10 PETER W. HALL 11 Circuit Judges.

13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 14 The Barton Group, Inc., 15 Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant- 16 Appellee-Cross-Appellant, 17 11-2751-cv(L) 18 -v.- 11-2930-cv(XAP) 19 11-3120-cv(CON) 20 NCR Corporation, 21 Defendant-Counter-Claim-Claimant- 22 Appellant-Cross-Appellee.* 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as shown above.

1 Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant- Appellee-Cross-Appellant: Sean C. Sheely, Holland 3 & Knight LLP, New York, 4 NY.

6 Defendant-Counter-Claim-Claimant- Appellant-Cross-Appellee: Ira C. Greenberg, 8 Edwards Angell Palmer & 9 Dodge LLP, New York, 10 NY.

12 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Maas, M.J.).1 15 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

19 This matter comes to us from a judgment entered after a jury verdict. Defendant-Counter-Claim-Claimant-Appellant- Cross-Appellee, NCR Corporation, appeals from the judgment of the district court, awarding Plaintiff-Counter-Claim- Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, The Barton Group, Inc., $8,018,667.00 in damages and $463,603.42 in prejudgment interest. The Barton Group appeals from the district court’s decision denying its request for equitable relief.

27 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying factual allegations, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

30 We review the district court’s denial of NCR Corporation’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. Hydro Invs., Inc. v. Trafalgar Power Inc., 227 33 F.3d 8, 15 (2d Cir. 2000). We accept the parties’ agreement that we review the district court’s denial of The Barton Group’s request for equitable relief for abuse of discretion.2

The parties consented to adjudication of this suit by Magistrate Judge Maas. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

We express no opinion as to our standard of review of the district court’s denial of The Barton Group’s request for equitable relief.

1 We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

3 We have considered all of the parties’ additional arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

7 FOR THE COURT: 8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk