
    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
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 13, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed November 22, 2017
    Jeffrey M. Cohon, Cohon & Poliak, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Alan I. Nahmias, Esquire, Attorney, Jeffrey Eric Wulkan, Mirman, Bubman & Nahmias, LLP, Woodland Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Kathryn Marie Davis, Attorney, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       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.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     