PACIFIC ENTERPRISES I, LLC V. AMCO INSURANCE CO., No. 15-16042 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PACIFIC ENTERPRISES I, LLC, FKA Pacific Enterprises, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 15-16042 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01757-JCM-VCF v. MEMORANDUM* AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2017** San Francisco, California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: SCHROEDER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL,*** District Judge. Pacific Enterprises, LLC (“Pacific”) appeals following the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of AMCO Insurance Company (“AMCO”). We affirm the district court. Pacific’s argument relating to the “Control of Property Condition” is waived, because it was never raised before the district court.1 See United States v. FloresMontano, 424 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Even if Pacific presented the contract to the district court, the argument that a specific provision of the contract precludes summary judgment was not sufficiently raised, because the district court had no duty to make Pacific’s argument for it. See, e.g., Forsberg v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 840 F.2d 1409, 1418 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The district judge is not required to comb the record to find some reason to deny a motion for summary judgment.”). Even if the “Control of Property Condition” argument were considered, Pacific fails to demonstrate there was a triable issue as to whether Quality Hotel *** The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. 1 There are three narrow exceptions to the waiver rule, none of which apply here. See United States v. Flores-Montano, 424 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). 2 Furniture Sales acted under Pacific’s direction or control, because Pacific does not present substantive arguments or cite any authority. See Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 587 n.5 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that the argument in appellant’s opening brief must contain “appellant’s contentions as well as citations to authorities and the record”) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A)); Retlaw Broad. Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 53 F.3d 1002, 1005 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that an issue is waived if the brief does not contain the appellant’s contentions and citations to authorities and the record). AFFIRMED. 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.