N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NIKKO M ATERIALS USA, INC ., DB A Gould Ele c tronic s, Inc .,

Pla i ntiff - Appe lle e , v. NAVC OM DEFENSE ELEC TR ONIC S INC ., a c orporation, De fe nda nt - Appe lla

nt, HYR UM JAR VIS, an individual, Errone ously Sue d As HTJ Trust,

De fe nda nt. No. 11-57004 D.C . No. 2:05-c v-04158-JFW
VB K
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John F. W a lte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

10, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED
JUL 26 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : PR EGER SON an d FISHER , C irc uit Judge s, a nd DANIEL, Distric t Judge
. ** NavC om De fe n se Ele c tronic s a

p pe a ls the Nove m

be r 3, 2011 judgme nt of the d istric t c o urt a

warding $2.7 mi llion for re sponse c o sts to Gould Ele c t ronic s. In pa rtic u la r, NavC om

a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing its motion to
c onside r Gould’ s insura

nc e se ttle m e nts in its c a lc ulation of a m one y judgm e nt. W e hold tha

t the distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d Na vC om ’ s m otion to c onside r the insura nc e se ttle m e nts be c a

use NavC om fa ile d

to pre se nt the argum e nt to the distric t c o urt in a

tim e ly m anne r. W e the re fore a ffirm the judgm e nt a s we ll. NavC om wa ive d its c onte ntion tha t it wa s e ntitle d

to offse ts for se ttle m e nt proc e e ds obta ine d by

Gould be twe e n 1994 a

nd 2001 by

ra ising the issue for the first tim e in Nove m

b e r 2010. Thepa

rtie s’ lia bility for Gould’ s pre -July

31, 2006 C ER C LA re sponse c o sts, inc luding a ny offse t s to whic h

NavC om wa s e ntitle d,
wa s litiga te d in a be nc h tria l in De c e m

be r 2006. Thedistric t c ourt e nte re d a fina l judgm e nt on those

lia bility issue s in 2007. W e a ffirm e d tha t judgm e nt in 2009. NavC o m did not ra ise this issue

until 2010, during a

proc e e ding a ddre ssing the pa rtie s ’ lia b ility for Gould’ s post-July

31, 2006 re sponse c o sts. Na v C om ’ s a c tions, the re fore , we re pla inly

untim e ly
.

** The Honora

b l e W ile y Y. Da nie l, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of C olora do, sitting by de signa tion. 2NavC om ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t it first le arne d a

bout these ttle m e nt proc e e ds in 2007 is be lie d by

the re c o rd. The re c ord shows tha t Na vC om wa s a ware of the
se ttle m e nt proc e e ds in 2006, be fore the be n c h tria l a nd long be fore the judgm e nt be c am e fina l. K .C . 1986 Ltd. Partne

rship v . Re adeManufac turing , 472 F.3d 1009 (8th C ir. 2007), doe s not support Na v C om ’ s position. K

.C . 1986 involve d a

de la y of only a fe w m o nths, a

n d the offse ts we re a sse rte d be fore e ntry of judgm e nt, while the distric t c o urt re ta i ne d disc re tion to re c e ive a dditional e vide nc e and m odify its inte rloc utory

orde rs. Se e id. at 1017-18. He re , by c ontra st, Na

vC om atte m pte d to
ra ise a ne w a

rgum e nt m ore tha

n thre e y e ars a fte r fina l judgm e nt. NavC om ’ s re lia

n c e on C al-Almond, Inc . v . De

p artme nt of Agric ulture , 67 F.3d 874 (9th C ir. 1995), v ac a te d , 521 U.S. 1113 (1997), is a lso m ispla c e d. In C al-Almond

, the De pa

rtm e nt of Agric ulture wa s pe rm i tte d to ra ise an argum e nt
re ga rding offse ts for the first tim e on re m and from this c ourt be c a

u se it wa s not until re m a

nd tha t the distric t c ourt first c onside re d the a ppropria te m o ne ta ry re lie f for the De pa

rtm e nt’ s viola

tion of thepla intiffs’ First Am e ndm e nt rights. S e e id. at 880 (“ [I] t wa s not until our rem and tha t the spe c ific s of fa shioning re m e dia l re lie f
c am e into foc us.” ). He re , by c ontra st, the offse t issuewa s squa re ly pre s e nte d a

nd fully litiga t e d in 2006. 3In sum , we hold tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion by holding tha t NavC o m did not waive this a

rgum e nt. Se e N

ov ato Fire

Prot. Dist. v. Unite d State s , 181 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th C ir. 1999) (re vie wing wa ive r for a n a b use of disc re tion); L.A. N

e w s Se rv . v . Re ute r

s Te le v ision Int’l, Ltd. , 149 F.3d 987, 996 (9th C ir. 1998) (sa

m e ). 1 B e c a

use NavC om

wa ive d its offse t a

rgum e nt, the distric t
c ourt prope rly de nie d Na

vC om ’ s m o tion to c onside r Gould’ s insura nc e se ttle m e nts in its c a lc ulation of a m one y judgm e nt. Although the

distric t c ourt de nie d

the
m otion ba se d on c olla

te ra l e stoppe l , rathe r tha

n wa ive r, we m ay a ffirm

on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. Se e Pate lc o C re dit Union v . Sahni , 262 F.3d 897, 913 (9th C i r. 2001). W e the re fore a ffirm the orde r a

nd judgm e nt a

ppe a le d from
. AFFIRM E D.

1 NavC om

e rrone ously

c onte nds tha

t unde r C BS, Inc . v . Me rric k, 716 F.2d 1292, 1295 (9th C ir. 1983), we re vie w for c le ar e rror. Na vC om c onfuse s a

distric t c ourt’ s finding re ga

rding thefa c tua l e xiste nc e of c ontrac tual w aiv e r , whic h is re vie we d for c l e ar e rror, with a

distric t c ourt’ s c onc l usion re ga rding disc re tiona

ry wa ive r of an issue or c la i m by fa ilure to tim e ly

a sse rt it in litiga

tion, whic h is re vie we d for a b u se of disc re tion. 4