Harrington Tools, Inc. v. Sunland Chemical & Research Corp. (In Re Harrington Tools, Inc.) , 537 F. App'x 733 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: HARRINGTON No. 11-56831
TOOLS, INC.,
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-08005-PA
Debtor,
MEMORANDUM*
HARRINGTON TOOLS, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
SUNLAND CHEMICAL AND
RESEARCH CORP., AKA Sunland
Chemical Corp.,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2013**
Pasadena, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: SILVERMAN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE, Senior
District Judge.***
Harrington Tools, Inc. (“HTI”) appeals the district court’s order affirming
the bankruptcy court’s decision granting Sunland Chemical & Research Corp.’s
(“Sunland”) motion for summary judgment and affirming the bankruptcy court’s
evidentiary rulings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and
1291, and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court correctly concluded that HTI’s equitable indemnity
claim against Sunland fails as a matter of law because equitable indemnity “is not
available in the absence of a joint legal obligation to the injured party.” Prince v.
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 202 P.3d 1115, 1122 (Cal. 2009). HTI has not raised a
triable question as to whether HTI and Sunland may be jointly liable to
Community Bank, even under California’s liberal joint liability rules. See Time
For Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes/All Am. Dev. Co., 280 Cal. Rptr. 904, 911
(Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (“It is well established that tortfeasors need not have acted in
unison, or even concurrently, to be considered as joint tortfeasors. Even tortfeasors
whose successive acts unite to produce an indivisible injury may be considered
***
The Honorable Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
2
joint tortfeasors for purposes of equitable indemnity.”). Rather, all of HTI’s
claimed damages are the result of its breach of its own loan agreement with
Community Bank, and it cites nothing in the record establishing that Sunland could
be liable to the bank for obligations that are HTI’s alone.1 See Prince, 202 P.3d at
1126 n. 10.
The district court deemed HTI’s challenges to the bankruptcy court’s
evidentiary rulings abandoned because HTI failed to support them with argument.
Issues abandoned before the district court ordinarily will not be considered on
appeal. See Harik v. Cal. Teachers Ass’n, 326 F.3d 1042, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
Even if we were to consider HTI’s arguments, we would not reverse unless the
bankruptcy court abused its discretion and the error was prejudicial. Johnson v.
1
HTI asserts that Community Bank would have several claims against
Sunland, but points to nothing in the record to show that Community Bank could
satisfy the elements of any of the causes of action it lists. See, e.g., Cal. Gov’t
Code § 66499.32(b) (California’s Subdivision Map Act, providing a cause of
action for damages only to “[a]ny grantee, or his successor in interest, of real
property which has been divided” unlawfully); Lazar v. Super. Ct., 909 P.2d 981,
984 (Cal. 1996) (observing that a fraud claim requires detrimental reliance on a
false statement); Sumner Hill Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC, 141
Cal. Rptr. 3d 109, 135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (noting that slander of title requires
publication of a false statement that disparages title to property and results in direct
pecuniary loss); First Nationwide Sav. v. Perry, 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 173, 176 (Cal. Ct.
App. 1992) (noting that, in unjust enrichment claims, “[t]he fact that one person
benefits another is not, by itself, sufficient to require restitution” unless “the
circumstances are such that, as between the two individuals, it is unjust for the
person to retain it”).
3
Neilson (In re Slatkin), 525 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir. 2008). HTI cites nothing in the
excluded evidence that raises a genuine dispute as to joint liability, and thus any
error was harmless. We need not reach the bankruptcy court’s conclusions that
HTI’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations and by laches because HTI has
failed to assert any viable claim against Sunland.
AFFIRMED.
4