Karlsson Group Incorporated v. Langley Farm Investments, LLC ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARLSSON GROUP INCORPORATED, No. 11-15509
a Nevada corporation and ANDERS
KARLSSON, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00457-PGR
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
LANGLEY FARM INVESTMENTS,
LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability
Company; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ACRES4U LAND & DEVELOPMENT
LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability
Company; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, Senior District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted May 16, 2012 **
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Karlsson Group Incorporated (“Karlsson”) appeals the district court’s
judgment in favor of Langley Farm Investments, LLC (“Langley”), Albert Van
Wanger, and others in Karlsson’s diversity action. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
1. Under Arizona law, the use of a lis pendens cannot provide the basis for
an abuse of process claim. Gray v. Kohlhase, 502 P.2d 169, 172-73 (Ariz. Ct.
App. 1972). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Karlsson’s abuse of
process claim as a matter of law, because this claim was based on Langley’s use of
a lis pendens. Karlsson waived its arguments justifying this claim under a theory
of duress or extortion. Even if not waived, Karlsson alleges no threats that would
justify an argument for duress.
2. As an essential element of an intentional interference claim, Karlsson
must prove that Langley acted “improperly” by filing suit to enforce the
ACRES4U contract in Arizona’s Apache County Superior Court. See Dube v.
Likins, 167 P.3d 93, 100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). However, Arizona law also
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
outlines that the “acted improperly” element cannot be met if Langley brought the
law suit in good faith. See Snow v. W. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 730 P.2d 204, 211-13
(Ariz. 1986).
In the underlying state court litigation, the Apache County Superior Court
determined that Langley’s Apache County Lawsuit was brought in good faith and
was not frivolous or brought to harass others. Thus, Karlsson is collaterally
estopped from religitating this good faith issue here, because 1) the same issue was
“actually litigated in the previous proceeding,” 2) “there [was] a full and fair
opportunity to litigate the issue,” 3) resolution of the good faith issue was
“essential to the decision,” 4) “there is a valid and final decision on the merits,”
and 5) “there is a common identity of the parties,” given that Karlsson controlled
the underlying litigation. State ex rel. Winkleman v. Ariz. Navigable Stream
Adjudication Comm’n, 229 P.3d 242, 256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). Therefore, the
district court correctly determined that Karlsson’s intentional interference claims
must fail as a matter of law.
AFFIRMED.
3