N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PAC IFIC ENTER

PR ISES I, LLC , FKA Pa c ific Ente rprise s, LLC ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. AM C O INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e , and TR AVELER S C A SUALTY INSUR ANC E C OM PANY OF AM ER IC A,

De fe nda n t. No. 15-16042 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01757-JC M -VC F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 14, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# F IL ED
J UN 26 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : SC HR OEDER and N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd PIER SOL, *** Distric t Judge
. Pa c ific Ente rprise s , LLC (“ Pa c ific ” ) a ppe a ls following the distric t c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t in fa

vor of AM C O Insura

nc e C o m pa ny (“ AM C O” ). W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt. Pa c ific ’ s argum e nt re lating to the “ C ontrol of Prope rty

C ondition”is wa ive d, be c a use it wa s ne ve r ra ise d be fore the distric t c ourt. 1 S e e Unite d State

s v . FloresMontano , 424 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th C ir. 2005) (pe r c uriam ). Eve n if Pa c ific pre s e nte d the c ontra c t to thedistric t c ourt, the argum e nt tha t a spe c ific provision of the c ontra c t pre c lude s sum m ary judgm e nt wa s not suffic ie ntly ra ise d, be c a

use the distric t c o urt ha d no duty

to m ake Pa c i fic ’ s a

rgum e n t for it. Se e

, e . g. , F o rsbe rg v . Pac . N w . Be ll Te l. C

o. , 840 F.2d 1409, 1418 (9th C ir. 1988) (“ The distric t judge is not re quire d to c om

b the re c ord to find some re a son to de ny a m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt.” ). Eve n if the “ C o ntrol of Prope rty C ondition”argum e nt we re c onside re d, Pa c ific fa ils to de m onstra te the re wa s a

tria b le issue a s to whe the r Qua lity Hote l

* * * The Honora

ble La wre nc e L. Pie rsol, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of South Da

k o ta , sitting by

de signa tion. 1 The re are thre e na

rrow e xc e ptions to the

wa ive r rule , none of whic h a pply he re . S e eUnite d State

s v . Flore s-Montano , 424 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th C ir. 2005) (pe r c uriam ).
2Furniture Sa l e s a c te d unde r Pa c ific ’ s dire c tion or c ontrol, be c a use Pa c ific doe s not pre s e nt substa

n tive argum e nts or c ite any a uthority
. Se e W

illiams v . W

oodford , 384 F.3d 567, 587 n.5 (9th C ir. 2004) (e xpla ining tha t the argum e nt in a

ppe lla nt’ s ope ning brie f m

u st c onta in “ a

ppe lla n t’ s c onte ntions a s we ll a s c ita t ions to
a uthoritie s a

nd the re c ord” ) (c iting Fe d. R
. App. P. 28(a )(9)(A)); Re t law Broad. C o. v . N a t’l Labor Re lations Bd. , 53 F.3d 1002, 1005 n.1 (9th C ir. 1995) (e xpla ining tha

t a n issue is wa ive d if the brie f doe s not c onta in the a ppe lla nt’ s
c onte ntions a

nd c i tations to a

uthoritie s a

nd the re c ord). AFFIRM E D.

3