N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT SLEP-TONE ENTER TAINM ENT C ORPOR ATION a nd PHOENIX ENTER TAINM ENT PAR T NER S, LLC ,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. W IR ED FOR

SOUND KAR

AOKE AND DJ SER V IC ES, LLC ; ER

NEST Z. M C C ULLAR ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-17229 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02631-NVW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W a ke , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 12, 2016 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and HUR

W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s , a

n d B OULW AR E, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
JAN 18 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion 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.

* * T he Honora

b le R ic ha rd F. B oulwa

re , Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ne va d a , sitting by de signa tion.Pla intiff Sle p-Tone Ente rta inm e nt C orpora tion 1 a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l with pre

judic e of Pla i ntiff’ s c la i m s for tra de m ark infringe m e n t a n d unfa ir
c om pe tition unde r the La

n ham Ac t, a

nd the distric t

c ourt’ s gra

n t of sum m ary judgm e nt to De fe n da

n t s on Pla i ntiff’ s c la im

for bre a c h of c ontra c t

unde r Ariz ona la w. 2 R e vie wing " de novo the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt," Am
. Towe r C orp. v. C ity

of San Die go, 763 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th C ir. 2014), we
re ve rse an d re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 1. Pla intiff did not distinc tly ra i se Ariz ona

sta t e la w c ounte rfe iting c l a im s in its ope ning brie f. Those c la im s a re the re fore wa ive d on a

ppe a l. C o rbin v. Tim e W arne r Entm ’ t -Adva

nc e /Ne whouse P’ ship, 821 F.3d 1069, 1075 n.3 (9th C ir. 2016). 2. " W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre t a tion of the c ontra c t de novo." Flore s v. Ly

nc h, 828 F.3d 898, 905 (9th C ir. 2016). " Our purpose in inte rpre ting a
c ontra c t is to a sc e rta in a

nd e nforc e the pa

rtie s’ inte n t. To de te rm ine the pa rtie s’ inte nt, we look to the

pla in m e a

ning of the words a s vie we d in the c onte xt of the

1 On a ppe a l, the c ourt ha s a dde d Phoe nix Ente rta inm e nt Pa rtne rs, LLC , Sle pTone ’ s suc c e ssor-in-inte re st, a s a n a dditiona l pa

rty . W e re fe r to the se e ntitie s c olle c tive ly

a s " Pla intiff."
2 W e a ffirm

the dism issa l of the tra de m ark-re l a te d c la im s in a c onc urre ntly file d pe r c uriam

opinion. 2c ontra c t a s a whole
. " Elm R e t. C tr., LP v. C a l la way , 246 P.3d 938, 941–42 (Ariz
. C t. App. 2010) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly he ld tha t pa ra gra ph 15 of the pa

rtie s’ e arlie r
se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt provide s Pla intiff with a c h oic e in the e ve nt of De fe nda nts’ de fa ult. Pla intiff " m ay , a t its option, (y ) a c c e le ra te any de bts owe d to it, de c la ring the m im m e diate l y due an d pa

y a ble , a nd institute an a c tion for bre a c h of the AGR E EM E NT, or (z ) void thec ove n ant provide d in pa ra g ra ph 13 a bove and institute a n a c tion for tra de m ark infringe m e nt, suc h a c tion be i ng ba s e d upon a c ts of DEFENDANT unde rta

ke n both be fore an d a fte r the e ffe c t ive da te of this AGR E EM E NT." De fe nda nts a rgue , in e ffe c t, tha

t by suing for tra de m ark infringe m e nt, Pla i ntiff wa ive d its c la i m for bre a c h of the e arlie r se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt. Se e Am
. C ont’ l Life Ins. C o. v. R anie r C onstr. C o., 607 P.2d 372, 374 (Ariz . 1980) (" W a ive r is e ithe r the e xpre ss, volunta ry , inte n tiona l re l inquishm e nt of a known right or suc h c onduc t a s wa rra nts a n infe re nc e of suc h a

n inte n tiona l
re linquishm e n t." ). W a ive r c o nstitute s a n a ffirm ative de fe nse tha

t m ust be ra ise d in
re sponsive ple a dings. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 8(c ); se e a lso Ariz . R . C i v. P. 8(c ). " The purpose of suc h ple a ding is to give the opposing pa

rty notic e of the [a ffirm a tive de fe nse ] and a

c ha nc e to a rgue , if [it] c an, why

the im position of a

n [a ffirm ative
3de fe nse ] would be ina ppropria te ." B londe r-Tongue La

bs., Inc . v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 350 (1971). He re , De fe n da

n t s ra ise d no suc h a ffirm a tive de fe nse in the ir a

nswe r to the Se c ond Am e nde d C o m pla int, whic h

a sse rte d c ontra c t
c la im s for the first tim e . Inste a d, a sse rtions of Pla intiff’ s purporte d wa ive r did not
arise until the

sum m ary judgm e nt sta ge . Although " [i] n the a bse nc e of a

showing of pre judic e , . . . a

n a ffirm ative de fe n se m ay be ra ise d for the first tim e a t sum m ary judgm e nt," C a m a

rillo v. M c C arthy , 998 F.2d 638, 639 (9th C ir. 1993), fore c losing the c ontra c t c la im only

a fte r the tra de m ark c la im ha d be e n dism isse d pre judic e d Pla i ntiff, whic h ha d no opportunity to litiga te this issue while both re m e die s
re m a ine d av a ila

ble
. Argum e nts tha

t Pla intiff a sse rte d

only tra de m ark infringe m e nt in its origina l
c om pla i nt a re be side the point. Theope ra tive Se c ond Am e nde d C om pla int a sse rts side -by -side c la im s for tra de m ark infringe m e n t a nd bre a c h of c ontra c t. The se
c la im s re la t e ba c k to the origina l filing. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 15(c ). As we have
e xpla ine d, " the ge n e ra l rule is tha t a n am e nde d

c om pla int supe r[s] e de s the origina l
c om pla i nt a nd re nde rs it without le ga l e ffe c t." La c e y v. M aric opa C ounty , 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba nc ). W he n the m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt wa s de c ide d, the ope ra tive
c om pla i nt a lle ge d

both c ontra c t a

nd tra d e m ark c la im s, m e an ing tha t, at tha t sta ge , 4Pla i ntiff ha d pursue d both the orie s. It wa s im possible to de te rm ine whe t he r, unde r the c ontra c t, Pla intiff ha d " i nstitute [d] an a c tion" for one a t the e x pe nse of the othe r. And, be c a

use the tra d e m ark c la im s now ha ve be e n dism isse d, no possibility of double re c ove ry

e xists. W e re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to De fe n da

n t s on Pla i ntiff’ s c la im

for bre a c h of c ontra c t

and re m and for
c onside ra tion of tha

t c la i m on its m e rits. AFFIRM E D in pa

rt; RE V E RSE D in pa

rt a nd RE M ANDE D . The pa rtie s sha l l be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l.

5Slep

- Tone Entm’t Corp. v. Wired for Sound , No. 14
- 17229

HURWITZ, Circuit Judge , concurring in part and dissenting in part : Although Arizona law generally allows a plaintiff to elect remedies after trial,
see Tempe Corp. Office Bldg. v. Ariz. Funding Servs. , 807 P.2d 1130, 1134 (Ariz. App. 1991) , filing a complaint is an election of remedi es if a contract so provides, see Wingate v. Gin , 714 P.2d 459, 462

– 63 (Ariz. App. 1985). In Wingate , the lease provid ed that upon the tenant ’s default, the landlord could either “ wait for the end of the lease term and recover any amounts found to be owing at that time , ” or “ elect to terminate the lease and recover his damages upon termination.” 714 P.2d at 463. The court found that by filing the “ complaint , seeking judgment for all rents and charges, past and future, Wingate elected to te rminate the lease. ” Id. Paragraph 15 of t he settlement agreement provides that in the event of breach

“ SLEP
- TONE may, at its option, (y) accelerate any debts owed to it, declaring them immediately due and payable, and institute an action for breach of the AGREEMENT, or (z) void the covenant provided in paragraph 13 above and institute an action for trademark infringe ment, such action being based upon acts of DEFENDANT undertaken both before and after the effective date of this AGREEMENT.” I would hold , as did the district court, that by suing for trademark infringement, Slep

- Tone voided the settlement agreement
. I w ould therefore affirm the summary judgment to Wired for Sound on Slep

- Tone’ s breach of contract claim 

# FILED
JAN 18 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL Sand respectfully dissent from the memorandum disposition to the extent it holds to

the contrary.