N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C OZUM EL LEASING, LLC , a De la ware lim i te d lia bility c om pa ny , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. INTER NATIONAL JETS, INC ., a W a shington c orporation; DAVID KILC UP, an

individual; ALDEN ANDR E, an individual; AIR C R

AFT SOLUTIONS, LLC , a W a s hington lim

i te d lia bility c om pa ny , De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-35539 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-05089-R JB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt J. B ry a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

8, 2020 ** Se attle , W a s hington 

# F IL ED JUL 22 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : FER NANDEZ a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B O LTON, *** Distric t Judge . C oz um e l Le a sing, LLC (“ C oz um e l” ) a p pe a ls from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt a fte r a

jury ve rdic t in fa vor of Inte rnationa l Je ts, Inc . (“ IJI” ) and Airc ra ft Solutions, LLC (“ A C S” ), and pre vious dism i ssa l s of Da

vid Kilc up a

nd Alde n Andre a s de fe nda

nts in this c a se . C oz um e l c la i m e d tha t IJI sold it a

n una irworthy a irc ra ft a fte r AC S ne glige ntly inspe c te d a

nd re pa ire d the a irc ra ft. W e a ffirm . (1) C oz um e l’ s c l a im s of fra ud, fra u d ule nt induc e m e nt, 1 and ne glige nt m isre pre se ntation a g a inst IJI, Kilcup, a nd Andre we re ba se d upon the ir a lle g e d sta te m e nts tha

t the AC S inspe c tion of thea i rc ra ft would bea de quate . The distric t c ourt did not err in gra

nting sum m ary judgm e nt on thosec la im s be c a u se C oz um e l did not pre s e nt e vide nc e 2 tha t ra ise d a tria ble issue a

bout a m isre pre se ntation of a

n

* * * The Honora

ble Susa n R . B olton, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion. 1 W a shington tre ats fra

ud a nd fra udule nt induc e m e nt c la im s the sa m e . Se e Elc o n C onstr., Inc . v . E. W

ash. Univ . , 273 P.3d 965, 970 (Wa sh. 2012). 2 W e lim it our c onside ration to e vide nc e tha t wa s be fore the distric t c ourt a t the t im e of sum

m ary judgm e nt . Se eLippi v . C ity Bank , 955 F.2d 599, 604 (9th C ir. 1992); c f. Hornish v. K

ing C ounty , 899 F.3d 680, 702–03 (9th C ir. 2018), c e rt. de nie d sub nom. K

ase burg v . Port of Se attle , __ U.S. __, 139 S. C t. 1546, 203 L. Ed. 2d 712 (2019). 2e xisting fa c t (a s oppose d to promise s of future pe rform anc e ) 3 or justifia ble re lia nc e 4 in light of C oz um e l’ s e xpe rie nc e with a irc ra ft inspe c tions. 5 As to Andre ’ s late r state m e nt tha

t the inspe c tion ha d be e n a de quate , the e vide nc e did not indic at e that wa s m a de ne glige ntly . 6 Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s a lso prope r on the W a shington C o nsum e r Prote c tion Ac t 7 c la im

be c a use C oz um e l did not subm i t suffic ie nt e vide nc e to satisfy the e le m e nts ne c e ssa

ry to de m onstra

te lia b ility unde r tha t Ac t. 8 Nor c ould the c la i m survive sum

m ary judgm e nt ba se d only upon m e re spe c ulat ion tha t the a c ts c ould de c e ive a

substa ntia l portion of the

public . Se e Mic ro Enhanc e me nt Int’l , 40 P.3d a

t 1220. (2) The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny i ng C oz um e l le ave

3 Se e Adams v . K

ing C ounty , 192 P.3d 891, 902 (Wa sh. 2008); Mic ro Enhanc e me nt Int’l, Inc . v . C oope rs &Ly brand, LLP , 40 P.3d 1206, 1219 (Wa sh. C t. App. 2002).

4 Ross v . K

irne r , 172 P.3d 701, 704 (Wa sh. 2007) (pe r c uriam ); M urphy v . Lint (In re

Estate of Lint) , 957 P.2d 755, 763 n.4 (Wa s h. 1998). 5 C f. Holland Furnac eC

o . v . K orth , 262 P.2d 772, 774–75 (Wa sh. 1953). 6 W e note tha

t the jury ultim ate ly de te rm ine d tha t C oz um e l did not prove

tha t IJI bre a c he d its c ontra c t with C oz um e l or tha t AC S wa s ne glige nt. 7 W a sh. R e v. C ode §§ 19.86.010–19.86.920. 8 Se e Trujillo v . N

w . Tr. Se rv

s., Inc . , 355 P.3d 1100, 1107–08 (W a sh. 2015); Be hnk e v . Ahre ns , 294 P.3d 729, 735–36 (Wa sh. C t. App. 2012); c f. Zuv e r v . Airtouc h C

ommc ’ns, Inc . , 103 P.3d 753, 760 (W a sh. 2004). 3to a

m e nd its c om

pla int just we e ks be fore tria l a nd two m onths a fte r disc ove ring the fa lsity of a c la i m e d m isre pre se ntation. Se e Zivk ov ic v . S. C

al. Edison C

o. , 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th C ir. 2002). M ore ove r, the propose d am e ndm e nt wa s futile be c a use the c l a im s ba se d upon it faile d for the sa m e re a sons tha

t thoseat sum

m ary judgm e nt fa ile d. Se e Missouri e x re l. K o ste r v . Harris , 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th C ir. 2017). (3) The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d judgm e nt a s a m atte r of la w in fa vor of Kilc up on C oz um e l’ s wa rranty c la im s; 9 in fa

vor of AC S on C oz um e l’ s ne glige nt m isre pre se ntation c l a im ; 1 0 and on C oz um e l’ s c la im s tha t IJI bre a c he d the a irworthine ss wa

rrantie s . 1 1 Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 50(a )(1)(B ). (4) W e have c a

re fully re vie we d C oz um e l ’ s va

rious e vide ntia

ry c la im s a nd

9 Se e Te x Ente rs., Inc . v . Broc k

w ay Standard, Inc . , 66 P.3d 625, 628–29 (W a sh. 2003); se e also W a sh. R e v. C ode §§ 62A.2-314(1), 62A.2-315. C oz um e l’ s re que s t to pie rc e the c orporate ve il for its e xpre s s wa rranty c la im is otiosebe c a

use IJI wa s not found lia

ble . Se eHuzzy

v . C ulbe rt C onstr. C o. , 489 P.2d 749, 753 (W a sh. C t. App. 1971).

1 0 It re ste d on m e re he arsa y by a pe rson who wa s not a

n a ge nt or e m

ploy e e . Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 801(c ); c f. id. at 801(d)(2)(D). 1 1 Eve n if the distric t

c ourt e rre d in gra

nting judgme nt a s a

m atte r of la

w on the w arranty

c la i m s a g a inst IJI, a

ny suc h e rror wa s ha

rm l e ss in light of the jury ’ s ve rdic t on theove rla

pping c ontra c t c la im . 4have de te rm ine d tha t the distric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion 1 2 in issuing its e vide ntia ry rulings. Those i nc lude : e xc l uding he arsay sta t e m e nts te stifie d to by Dr. David Fa lla

ng; sta te m e nts m a de re ga

rding ne gotia

tions; 1 3 and c e rta in da

m a ge s te stim ony . 1 4 The y

a lso inc lude the a dm i ssion of Exhibit C -17 at tria l. Se e Roge rs v . Ray mark

Indus., Inc . , 922 F.2d 1426, 1432 n.2 (9th C ir. 1991). (5) The distric t c ourt did not err in its form ulations of four jury instruc tions. 1 5 First, re v e rsa l is not wa rrante d ba se d on the m itiga t ion instruc tion be c a use the jury

ne ve r re a c h e d the issue of da m a ge s a nd thus did not c o nside r m itiga tion. Se e C

he ffins v . Ste w art , 825 F.3d 588, 596 (9th C ir. 2016). Se c ond, be c a

use the pilot’ s role in de te rm ining a irworthine ss is not a pa rt of the d e finition of ai rworthine ss, C oz um e l ha s not shown tha t the pa rtie s de fine d a irworthine ss diffe re ntly

from the c ourt’ s instruc tion. C f . Be rg v . Hude

sman , 801

1 2 Se e Py ramid Te c hs., Inc . v . Hartford C a s. Ins. C o. , 752 F.3d 807, 813 (9th C ir. 2014); Boy d v . C

ity & C ounty of San Franc isc o , 576 F.3d 938, 943 (9th C ir. 2009). 1 3 Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 408(a).

1 4 Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 401, 701; se e also Fe d. R . C iv. P. 37(c )(1). W e a lso note that any e rror would be ha

rm l e ss be c a

use the jury

found a g a inst C oz um e l on the m e rits a nd thus did not re a c h the issue of da m a ge s. Se e Mic rosoft C

orp. v . Motorola, Inc . , 795 F.3d 1024, 1052 (9th C i r. 2015).

1 5 W e re vie wfor a

b u se of disc re tion. Se e Hung Lam v . C i ty of San J ose , 869 F.3d 1077, 1085 (9th C ir. 2017). 5P.2d 222, 230 (W a sh. 1990).

Third, re ve rsa l is not wa

rrante d ba se d on the warranty disc la im e rs instruc tion be c a

use unde r the c irc um sta

n c e s it is highly

im proba ble tha t the jury would ha ve found tha

t the de live ry

of a n una irworthy

a i rc ra ft wa s not a

bre a c h of the c ontra c t. C

f. Middle ton v . Mc

N e il , 541 U.S. 433, 438, 124 S. Ct . 1830, 1833, 158 L. Ed. 2d 701 (2004) (pe r c uriam ). M ore ove r, the e vide nc e at tria l wa s tha

t C oz um e l purc ha se d the a irc ra ft “prim arily for pe rsona l or fa m ily use . ” The jury wa s instruc te d tha

t ge ne ra l disc la im e rs of wa rrantie s we re ine ffe c tive in tha t situa tion. Fourth, be c a

use C oz um e l ha s not shown tha t AC S ha d a duty

to pe rform

a pre -purc ha s e inspe c tion, thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to a d d “pre -purc h a se inspe c tion” to the ne glige nc e instruc tion. AFFIRM E D .

6