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 and 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 A L L O U R E , I N C ., aC a lif o rn ia c orpor a t i on, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, a nd JA L A L A L L E N M O N S H IE T E H A D I, an i nd i vi du al ; A R M A N V A K IL I, an in d iv id u a l, P l ai n t i ffs, v. F A C O O P E R A T IV E , IN C . , a M i ss ou ri corporat i on , D B A F l oo ri ng A m er i ca , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 55080 D . C. N o . 8 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 6 1 4 - D O CRNB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D a vi d O . C a rt e r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng 

# FI LED JU N 13 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). S ubm i tt e d J une 9, 2011 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an d R Y M E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A l l o u r e , I n c . ap p e a l s th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s g r a n to f s u mma ryj u d g me n tt o FA C o o p e r a t i v e , I n c . ( F AC ) . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dwe a f f i rm. A s an i ni t i al m att er , F A C has w ai ved any argum entthatthi s a ct i on i s barre d b yr e s ju d ic a tab yf

a ilin g to r a is e it in d is tr ic t c o u rt. R otec Indu s. , Inc. v. Mi t s ubis hiC or

p. , 3 4 8 F .3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 1 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . F A C ’s s tr a te g ic c h o ic e to avoi d rai si ng re s j ud i ca t a i n d i stri ctcourtdo es no tconst i tut e an extra ordi nary c ir c u m s ta n c e th a t ju s tif

ie s p u r s u in g it f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. Id . T u rn in g to A llo u r e ’s a r g u m e n ts , w h e th e rth e F A C b y la w s r e q u ir e dit to exhaustF A C ’ s i nt ernal re m edi es before bri ng i ng sui ti s w ai ved. A l l ou re a c k n o w le d g e s th a t th is a r g u m e n t w a s n o t e x p r e s s lyp r e s e n te dto th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. I n f a c t , i t s pos i t i on pr e s um e d the oppos i t e i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the by l a w s . W e do not c o n s id e ra n a r g u m e n t o n ap p e a l th a t w a s n o t “r a is e ds u f f ic ie n tlyf o rth e [ d is tr ic t] courtt o rul e on i t . ” O ’R o u rke v . Se a b o a rd Su r e tyC o . (

I n r e E .R . Feg e r t, I

n c .) , 887 F . 2d 95 5, 95 7 (9th C i r. 19 89 ).A l l ou re ’ s argum ent s thatexhaust i on w as excuse d are al so w ai ved. A l l ou re

d idn o t r a is e in d is tr ic t c o u rt th e is s u e o f w h e th e rth e ap p e a l h e a r in g w a s f u tile because i t s busi ness had al re ady bee n d es troye d. Inst ea d, i tar gu ed the heari ng w as f ut i l e be c aus e i tha d no c ha nc e t o pr e va i l due t o the hos t i l i tyof the he a r i ng co m m ittee. T h e o sten sib ly sim il arar g u m en t A ll o u re m ad e in re sp o n se to F A C ’s w r i tof m a nda t e a r gum e ntc onc e rne d i na de qua c yof r e m e dyi ns t e a d of

f ut i l i ty , a nd w a s m a de i n r e s pons e t o adi f f e r e ntba s i s f

ors um m a ryj udgm e nt . I n a nye ve nt , the a r g u m e n t f

a ils b e c au s e th e f

u tilitye x c e p tio n ap p lie s w h e n ap a rty“c a n p o s itiv e ly s t a t e tha tthe a ge nc yha s de c l a r e d w ha ti t s rul i ng w i l l be on apa rt i c ul a rc a s e , ” not w h e n s o m e h a rm h a s a lr e a d yb e f a lle n th e p a rty . Jona tha n N ei l & A ss ocs. , Inc. v. Jones , 94 P . 3d 1055, 1067 ( C a l . 2004) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd a l t e r a t i on om i tt ed). A llo u r e a ls o d idn o t r a is e in d is tr ic t c o u rt its a r g u m e n t th a t e x h au s tio n is e xc us e d be c aus e the he a r i ng c om m i tt e e c oul d notgr a ntthe appr opr i a t e r e l i e f of d a m a g e s . N o rd idit r a is e w h e th e rth e c o m m itte e la c k e dju r is d ic tio n . T h e c lo s e s t it ca m e w as ar gu i ng thata w ri tof m andat e w as no tre qu i re d b ec ause the com m i tt ee po ss es se d n o p art i cul arexpert i se . T hi s i s m er el y asubsetof the approp ri at e r el i ef a r g u m e n t A llo u r e n o w a d v a n c e s , a n dit w a s r a is e din r e s p o n s e to ad if f e r e n t b a s is f o rs u m m a ryju d g m e n t. R e g a r d le s s , th e a r g u m e n t f a ils b e c au s e e x h au s tio n is r e q u ir e de v e n if

th e p r iv a te r e m e d ie s d o n o t in c lu d e d a m a g e s . W es t lake Cm t

y.H

o s p . v . Su p e r . C t. , 551 P . 2d 410, 415- 16 ( C a l . 1976) . T he pol i c yc ons i de r a t i ons in su p p o rt o f th is ru le ar e f u rth er ed b y r eq u irin g ex h au stio n h er e: A ll o u re ’s p art i ci p at i o n w o u l d h av e g i v en F A C m o re o p p o rtu n i ty t o m i n i m i ze an y d am ag es, the c om m i tt e e ha s e xpe rt i s e i n the m a tt e r s c e ntr a l t o thi s di s put e , a nd the r e c or d f or the di s tr i c tc ourtw oul d ha ve be e n m or e de ve l ope d ha d A l l our e pa rt i c i pa t e d i n the h e a r in g . Se e i d. AF F I R ME D.