Rivercard, LLC v. Scot Patriquin , 691 F. App'x 463 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MAY 26 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    RIVERCARD, LLC,                                  No.   15-16794
    Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No.
    2:13-cv-02123-LDG-NJK
    v.
    SCOT PATRIQUIN and PATRIQUIN                     MEMORANDUM*
    LAW PROFESSIONAL
    CORPORATION,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted May 12, 2017
    Pasadena, California
    Before: KOZINSKI and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and WILKEN,** Senior
    District Judge.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Claudia Wilken, United States Senior District Judge
    for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    Page 2
    1.     “A party who intends to raise an issue about a foreign country’s law
    must give notice by a pleading or other writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. Notice
    must be given “at a time that is reasonable” and “generally . . . before or during the
    pretrial conference.” DP Aviation v. Smiths Indus. Aerospace & Def. Sys. Ltd.,
    
    268 F.3d 829
    , 847 (9th Cir. 2001). Patriquin twice invoked Ontario’s statute of
    limitations: as an affirmative defense in its answer and in its motion for summary
    judgment. Because both of those pleadings were filed before the district court
    scheduled a pretrial conference, Patriquin provided reasonable notice of Canada’s
    statute of limitations.
    2.     Nothing in the record suggests that the parties chose Ontario law in
    bad faith and in an attempt to evade Nevada law. See 
    id.
     Moreover, Ontario has a
    substantial relationship to the escrow agreement. See Williams v. United Servs.
    Auto. Ass’n, 
    849 P.2d 265
    , 266 (Nev. 1993). Patriquin Law, a Toronto law firm,
    released the escrow funds to Post Oak Productions, Inc., an Ontario-based
    corporation. Finally, the district court’s deference to Ontario law is consistent with
    Nevada’s public policy interest in “protecting the freedom of persons to contract.”
    Hansen v. Edwards, 
    426 P.2d 792
    , 793 (Nev. 1967). The escrow agreement’s
    Page 3
    choice-of-law provision is therefore valid under Nevada’s three-factor test. See
    Engel v. Ernst, 
    724 P.2d 215
    , 217 (Nev. 1986).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-16794

Citation Numbers: 691 F. App'x 463

Judges: Kozinski, Owens, Wilken

Filed Date: 5/26/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024