Frontline Processing Corp. v. First State Bank of Eldorado,, et al, No. 08-35879 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRONTLINE PROCESSING CORP., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant Appellee, OCT 05 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS No. 08-35879 D.C. No. CV 01-00074-RFC District of Montana, Butte v. FIRST STATE BANK OF ELDORADO, ELDORADO, ILLINOIS, an Illionois corporation, ORDER AMENDING MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING Defendant-counter-claimant Appellant, v. LMA UNDERWRITING AGENCY, INC.; CHRISTOPHER L. KITTLER, Third-party-defendants Appellees. FRONTLINE PROCESSING CORP., a Nevada corporation, No. 09-35166 D.C. No. CV 01-00074-BU-RFC Plaintiff-counter-defendant Appellant, v. FIRST STATE BANK OF ELDORADO, ELDORADO, ILLINOIS, an Illinois corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant Appellee, v. LMA UNDERWRITING AGENCY, INC.; CHRISTOPHER L. KITTLER, Third-party-defendants Appellants. Before: REINHARDT, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Appellant s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED. The reply tendered September 15, 2010, is ordered filed. The memorandum disposition filed July 30, 2010, is amended as follows: On page 4, replace the first full paragraph with: We review for clear error a district court s factual findings. Bertelsen v. Harris, 537 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2008). Defendant argues that $160,000 of the Count IIA award is duplicative of the Count IV award requiring payment of "the Wade Cook reserve money, plus interest." The district court s findings of fact show that Defendant twice deducted from Plaintiff s income "$80,000 going to reserve." The district court specified neither which funds comprised the Wade Cook Reserve nor which reserve account received the two $80,000 deductions. Because the district court s award and findings of fact are ambiguous, we remand to the district court to determine whether the $160,000 was awarded under either Count IIA or Count IV, or both. 2 On page 13, replace the last paragraph with: AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED in part with instructions to dismiss Defendant s indemnification counterclaims without prejudice and to clarify the award under Count IIA and Count IV. With these amendments, the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or for rehearing en banc may be filed. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
