Bank of the West, Inc. v. Organic Grain & Milling, Inc. et al, No. 2:2008cv02220 - Document 49 (D. Ariz. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER vacating judgments (docs. 41 and 48 ). The Clerk shall enter final judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $171,324.07, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from July 17, 2008 until paid. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 04/30/10. (ESL)

Download PDF
Bank of the West, Inc. v. Organic Grain & Milling, Inc. et al 1 Doc. 49 WO 2 3 4 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Bank of the West, Inc., 10 11 Plaintiff, vs. 12 Organic Grain & Milling, Inc., 13 Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-08-2220-PHX-FJM ORDER 15 16 17 On March 17, 2010, we granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on count 18 1 of the complaint (breach of contract) and granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s 19 counterclaims (doc. 37). 20 $171,324.07.” Following our order, four claims and the issue of damages remained 21 unresolved. The parties subsequently stipulated to dismiss the remaining claims and 22 judgment was entered “dismissing Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Plaintiff to take nothing.” 23 (doc. 41). Neither party objected to the judgment. Then, on April 27, 2010, the clerk entered 24 an amended judgment, this time stating that our March 17, 2010 order dismissed count 1 of 25 the complaint and that “Plaintiff and Defendant are to take nothing.” (doc. 48). Both 26 judgments were erroneously entered and are now VACATED (doc. 41 and 48). Plaintiff sought damages under count 1 “of no less than 27 On April 1, 2010, plaintiff lodged a form of proposed judgment assessing damages 28 in the amount of $171,324.07, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from July 17, 2008 Dockets.Justia.com 1 (doc. 45). Defendant has not objected to the damages amount, other than to challenge the 2 applicable rate of interest. See Response to Motion for Attorney Fees at 3. Defendant 3 objects to the proposed 10% rate set forth in A.R.S. § 44-1201(A), suggesting instead that 4 Colorado law, which applies an 8% rate, is appropriate. 5 Arizona follows the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws in deciding choice of 6 law issues. Cardon v. Cotton Lane Holdings, Inc., 173 Ariz. 203, 207, 841 P.2d 198, 202 7 (1992). Under § 188 of the Restatement, we apply the local law of the state having the most 8 significant relationship to the transaction and the parties. Here, the proceeds of the crops 9 grown in Arizona are the principal subject matter of the contract. The action arises from the 10 parties’ efforts to enforce their respective rights under contracts they entered into with Desert 11 Organics, the producer of the subject crops and an Arizona resident. Neither party was a 12 resident of Arizona or Colorado. The only connection to Colorado is that the agreement was 13 drafted and executed there. But the place of contracting standing alone, “is a relatively 14 insignificant contact.” Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 cmt. e. We conclude 15 that Arizona is the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction, and 16 accordingly apply A.R.S. § 44-1201(A). 17 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED VACATING judgments (docs. 41 and 48). The clerk 18 shall enter final judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of 19 $171,324.07, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from July 17, 2008 until paid. 20 DATED this 30th day of April, 2010. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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.