T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T G C M A I R G R O U P , L L C , aN e va da l i m i t ed l i ab i l i ty co m p an y, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C H E V R O N U .S .A ., I N C ., aP e n n s y lv a n ia c orpor a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 15825 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 1 6 8 - BESR AM ME MOR AN DU M *

G C M A I R G R O U P , L L C , aN e va da l i m i t ed l i ab i l i ty co m p an y, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C H E V R O N U .S .A ., I N C ., aP e n n s y lv a n ia c orpor a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 16412 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 1 6 8 - BESR AM

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da 

# FI LED JU L 09 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST h e H o n o r ab le T im o th yM . T y m k o v ic h , C ir c u it J u d g e f o rth e T e n th * * C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. 09- 15825 2 B r i a n E . S a ndova l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J une 17, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: H A W K IN S , F IS H E R , an d T Y M K O V IC H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. ** G C M A i r G ro u p , L L C , fi l ed v ari o u s co n tractan d t o rtcl ai m s ag ai n st C he vr on U . S . A . , I nc . , r e ga r di ng c ont a m i na t i on a nd r e m e di a t i on on a dj a c e nt p r o p e rtie s lo c a te d in N e v a d a . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt e x e r c is e d ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 28 U . S . C . § 1332. G C M appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i ons gr a nt i ng C he vr on su m m ary ju d g m en t, d en yin g G C M ’s re q u es t fo r r ec o n sid er atio n , rejec ti n g G C M ’s m ot i on t o c e rt i f

yque s t i ons t o the N e va daS upr e m e C ourt , a nd a w a r di ng C he vr on a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e a f f irm in p a rt, r e ve r s e i n pa rt , a nd r e m a nd f orf urthe rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th ourdi s pos i t i on. S u m m a ryJ u d g m e n t W i th one e xc e pt i on— the tr e s pa s s c l a i m r e l a t i ng t o the a dj a c e ntr e s t aur a nt prop erty— w e hol d thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n g rant i ng C hevron sum m ary ju d g m e n t o n G C M ’s c la im s . T h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t d e m o n s tr a te th e e le m e n ts n e c e s s a ryf o rG C M to s uc c e e d on i t s ne gl i ge ntm i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on, br e a c h of c ontr a c t , i m pl i e d c ove na ntof09- 15825 3 good f a i th a nd f

a i rde a l i ng, a nd i nt e r f

e r e nc e w i th pr os pe c t i ve e c onom i c a dva nt a ge cl ai m s. T h e ev i d en ce p resen t ed d o es n o tsh o w C h ev ro n p ro v i d edG C M fal se in f o rm a tio n o rth a t C h e v r o n h a d ap e c u n ia ryin te r e s t in th e s a le o f th e p r o p e rtie s to G C M . See B arm et t lerv. R eno A i r, Inc. , 956 P . 2d 1382, 1387 ( N e v. 1998) ( l i s t i ng th e e le m e n ts o f

an e g lig e n t m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n c la im ) . N o rd idG C M a d e q u a te ly d e v e lo p an o n - d is c lo s u r e a r g u m e n t. Se e Sc hne l l i ng v . B udd ( I n r e A gr i bi ote c h, I n c .) , 291 F . S upp. 2d 1186, 1190 S 93 ( D . N e v. 2003) ( r e c ogni z i ng a n om i s s i on m a yf o rm th e b a s is o f

an e g lig e n t m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n c la im ) . T h e e v id e n c e s e t f

o rth a ls o f

a ils to d e m o n s tr a te C h e v r o n b r e a c h e d its ag re em en ts w ith G C M b y n o t satisfy in g th e W as h o e C o u n ty H ea lth D ep ar tm en t’ s r e m e d ia tio n r e q u ir e m e n ts . S im ila r ly , th e e v id e n c e p r o v id e d d o e s n o t d e m o n s tr a te C hevron del i bera t el y del ay ed the re m edi at i on of the prop ert i es or thata s peci al e le m e n t o f

r e lia n c e o rf

id u c ia ryd u tye x is te d in G C M a n d C h e v r o n ’s r e la tio n s h ip . Se e Hi l ton H

ote l s C or p. v . B utc h L e w is P r ods . , Inc. , 808 P . 2d 919, 922 S 23 ( N e v. 1991) ( di s c us s i ng the e l e m e nt s of i m pl i e d c ove na ntof

good f a i th a nd f

a i rde a l i ng c l a i m s br oughti n c ontr a c ta nd t ort ) . N ordoe s the e vi de nc e s how C he vr on in te n tio n a llyin te r f

e r e d w ith G C M ’s p o te n tia l s a le o f th e p r o p e rtie s . See M

& R In v. C o . , In c. v. G o ld

sb erry , 707 P . 2d 1143, 1144 ( N e v. 1985) ( “ T he r e c a n be no do ub tthatproo f of in te n tio n a l i nt er fe re nce i s a s i ne qua non of the t ort[ of09- 15825 4 in te r f e r e n c e w ith p r o s p e c tiv e e c o n o m ic a d v a n ta g e ].” ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) (a l t er at i on om i tt ed)) . B e c au s e G C M ’s n e g lig e n c e c la im a m o u n ts to ac la im C h e v r o n f a ile d to rem ed i at e i n acco rd an ce w i th th e t erm s o f th e p art i es’ ag reem en t s, an d b ecau se G C M s e e k s r e lie f

f o rd a m a g e s r e s u ltin g f

r o m th a t a lle g e d f

a ilu r e , th e e c o n o m ic lo s s d o c tr in e b a r s th e c la im . Se e T e rr ac on C ons ul tant

s W . , I nc . v . M andalay R e s or t G r p. , 206 P . 3d 81, 86 ( N e v. 2009) ( “ T he e c onom i c l os s doc tr i ne m a rks the f unda m e nt a l bounda rybe tw e e n c ontr a c tl a w , w hi c h i s de s i gne d t o e nf or c e the e xpe c t a nc yi nt e r e s t s of

the pa rt i e s , a nd t ortl a w , w hi c h i m pos e s adutyof r e a s onabl e c a r e and the r e byge ne r a l l ye nc our a ge s c i t i z e ns t o a voi d c aus i ng p h y s ic a l h a rm to o th e r s .” ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d a lte r a tio n s o m itte d ) ) ; se e a l s o Gi le s v . GM

AC , 4 9 4 F. 3 d 8 6 5 , 8 7 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( n o t i n g t o rtc l a i ms a m ount i ng “ t o nothi ng m or e tha n af a i l ur e t o pe r f

orm apr om i s e c ont a i ne d i n a contra ct ” have been barr ed by the ec on om i c l oss doctri ne). R e g a r d in g G C M ’s s tr ic t liab ilityc la im , b e c au s e s to r in g g a s o lin e in u n d e r g r o u n d ta n k s b e n e a th g a s s ta tio n s c a n b e a c c o m p lis h e d s a f e lyw ith r e a s o n ab le c a r e , is c o m m o n p la c e , is o f s ig n if ic a n t u tilityto th e c o m m u n ity , a n d is appr opr i a t e i n c om m e r c i a l a nd r e s i de nt i a l s e tt i ngs , a nd be c aus e nothi ng i n the r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s o th e rw is e , s u c h s to r a g e is n o t a n u ltr a - h a z a r d o u s a c tiv ity09- 15825 5 s u b je c t to s tr ic t liab ility . Se e V ale nt i ne v . P i one e rChlorA lkal iC o. , 864 P . 2d 295, 29 7 (N ev. 19 93 ) ( prov i di ng the fa ct ors f or det erm i ni ng w hether an act i vi ty i s ul tra h a z a r d o u s ) . C onc e rni ng G C M ’ s pr ope rtyda m a ge c l a i m s r e l a t i ng t o the l e a s e d s t a t i on prop erty, the re cord dem on stra t es G C M kn ew of or re as on abl y c ou l d h ave l earned o f s u f f ic ie n t f a c ts s u p p o rtin g th o s e c la im s w h e n it a c q u ir e d th e p r o p e rtie s in 2 0 0 2 . See P eter

se n v. B ruen , 792 P . 2d 18, 20 ( N e v. 1990) ( rul i ng the s t a tut orype r i od of l i m i t a t i ons i s t ol l e d “ unt i l the i nj ur e d pa rtydi s c ove r s orr e a s onabl ys houl d ha ve di s c ove r e d f

a c t s s upport i ng ac aus e of a c t i on” ) . T hus , the c l a i m s a r e ba rr e d bythe s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . See N e v . R e v . S ta t. § 1 1 . 2 2 0 ( p r o v i d i n g t o rtc l a i ms c onc e rni ng pr ope rtyda m a ge m us tbe br oughtw i thi n f oury e a r s of

a c c rua l ) . T o the e xt e ntG C M a s s e rt s on appe a l pr ope rtyda m a ge c l a i m s r e l a t i ng t o the a dj a c e nt r e s t aur a ntpr ope rtyon appe a l , thos e c l a i m s a r e ba rr e d be c aus e G C M di d not a d e q u a te lyp r e s e n t th e a r g u m e n t b e lo w th a t it h a d a d d itio n a l, s e p a r a te c la im s a s to th e r e s tau r a n t p r o p e rty . See F. T . C . v. N eovi, Inc. , - - - F . 3d - - - , N o. 09- 55093, 2010 W L 23 65 95 6, at*7 n. 7 (9th C i r. June 15 , 20 10 ) ( st at i ng i ss ues notprop er l y r ai se d i n the di stri ctcourtar e w ai ved o n app ea l ). A s t o G C M ’ s s epar at e tre spas s c l ai m (C l ai m 16 ), w hether G C M di sc ov er ed or shou l d h ave di sc ov er ed fa ct s s up po rt i ng thi s c l ai m before 20 05 i s adi sput ed09- 15825 6 m a te r ia l f

a c t. Se e S i r a g u s a v . Br o wn , 971 P . 2d 801, 812 ( N e v. 1998) ( hol di ng the t i m e of a cc rual m aybe deci ded as am att erof l aw on l y w here un controvert ed e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t e s the pl a i nt i f f di s c ove r e d ors houl d ha ve di s c ove r e d the i nj ur i ous c onduc t ) . A s ar e s ul t , i tc a nnotbe de t e rm i ne d on thi s s um m a ryj udgm e nt r e c o r d th a t th is c la im is tim e - b a rr e d . R e c ons i de r a t i on B e c aus e G C M c onc e de s i t s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on w a s f i l e d out s i de of R u le 5 9 ( e ) ’s 1 0 - d a yw in d o w , see A m . Iro n w o rks & E recto rs, In c. v. N . A m . C o n str. C or p. , 248 F . 3d 892, 898 S 99 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( pr ovi di ng am ot i on f or reco n si d erat i o n i s treat ed as a R u l e 6 0 (b ) m o t i o n , u n l ess i ti s fi l ed w i th i n 1 0 d ays of the entryof j ud gm ent ), and the un i qu e c i rc um st ance s doctri ne i s i napp l i cabl e, s e e W i e rs m a v . B ank

of the W e s t ( I n r e W i e rs m a) , 48 3 F . 3d 93 3, 94 0 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( st at i ng the do ctri ne appl i es on l y w here a c ou rthas “ expl i ci t l y m i sl ed” a party) , the di stri ctcourtprop er l y tre at ed the m ot i on un der R ul e 60(b). F urther, be c aus e G C M ’ s m ot i on m e r e l yr e s t a t e d the c ont e nt i ons i ts e tf orth i n i t s oppos i t i on t o sum m ary j ud gm ent , ou r abo ve anal ys i s c on ce rni ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary ju d g m e n t d e c is io n ap p lie s e q u a llyh e r e . See F e d. R . C i v. P . 60( b) ( pr ovi di ng g r o u n d s f

o rr e lie f ) .09- 15825 7 C e rt i f i c a t i on T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by decl i ni ng t o cert i fyse vera l i s s ue s t o the N e va daS upr e m e C ourt . G C M f a i l e d t o s e e k a l t e r a t i on ora m e ndm e nt o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t o n th e c la im s r e la tin g to th e is s u e s it s o u g h t to c e rtif y , se e N ev. R . A pp . P . 5(a) , and the di stri ctcourtprop er l y det erm i ned i thad a de qua t e gui da nc e c onc e rni ng how the N e va daS upr e m e C ourtw oul d de c i de the eco n o m i c l o ss d o ctri n e an d u l tra-h azard o u s l i ab i l i ty i ssu es. A tt orneys ’ F ee s B e c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtw i l l ne c e s s a r i l ybe r e qui r e d t o r e e va l ua t e the atto rn ey s’ fe es aw ar d g iv en o u r d isp o siti o n , w e d ec li n e to co n sid erG C M ’s cont ent i on s r egar di ng thataw ar d atthi s j un cture. A FFI R M ED in p a rt, R EVER SED i n pa rt , a nd R EM A N D ED for f urther pr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s di s pos i t i on. E a c h pa rtys ha l l be a ri t s ow n c os t s on ap p e a l.