This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc.,
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 001340
William H. Henney, Law Office of William Henney, 5101 Thimsen Avenue, Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55345 (for respondent)
Michael C. Glover, Kalina, Wills, Gisvold & Clark, 941 Hillwind Road N.E., Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55432 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by G. Barry Anderson, Presiding Judge, Roland C. Amundson, Judge, and Daniel F. Foley, Judge*.
G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge
Appellant Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. (“EWA”), challenges the district court’s denial of its motion for amended findings or a new trial, arguing that the district court (1) clearly erred in its findings of fact; (2) erred in concluding that it received proper notice of assignment pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 336.9-318 (1998); and (3) abused its discretion in an evidentiary ruling. We affirm.
At the conclusion of the trial, EWA requested that the district court dismiss TranCentral’s action for failure to present proof of its assignment to EWA. The district court denied the motion. By order dated November 28, 2000, the district court concluded that TranCentral provided the necessary notice to EWA of its assignment and awarded TranCentral $45,039.20, plus costs and pre-verdict interest. EWA moved for amended findings or a new trial, arguing that the district court (1) clearly erred in its findings of fact; (2) erred in concluding that EWA received proper notice of assignment required under Minn. Stat. § 336.9-318 (1998); and (3) abused its discretion in an evidentiary ruling. The district court denied EWA’s post-trial motions. This appeal follows.
Appellant next challenges the district court’s finding that Herrig contacted Gibbons on December 15, 1998, to verify the agreement and the procedures to be followed for receiving payment. Appellant argues that there is nothing in the record, other than the testimony of Glenn Herrig, to support the finding. But Herrig testified that he sometimes used an “800 number” to contact EWA, which would not appear in the phone log. EWA counters that accounts-payable employee Fleming testified that there was not an “800 number” at the Springfield office. But EWA did not introduce any other evidence to support Fleming’s testimony. Thus, once again, the district court, given different testimony by two witnesses, apparently accepted Herrig’s version of events and rejected Fleming’s. See Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d at 210 (stating that appellate courts must defer to such credibility determinations). We conclude that the finding regarding the December 15, 1998, conversation was not clearly erroneous.