N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SUENOS LLC , a

n Illinois lim

ite d lia bility c om pa ny , Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DIANE GOLDM AN, a

Ne w Je rse y individual, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-16906

D.C . No. 2:10-C V-01034-TL
M EM O R ANDUM *

SUENOS LLC , a

n Illinois lim

ite d lia bility c om pa ny , Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DIANE GOLDM AN, a

Ne w Je rse y individual, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-17502

D.C . No. 2:10-C V-01034-TL



# FIL ED DEC 10 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.SUENOS LLC , a n Illinois lim

ite d lia bility c om pa ny , Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DIANE GOLDM AN, a

Ne w Je rse y individual, De fe nda

nt, And LAWYER S TITLE OF ARIZONA INC ORPOR

ATED, a n Ariz ona c orporation, a s suc c e s sor-in-inte re st to Land Am e ric a

C a pita l Title C o m

p any , a Virginia c orporation, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt, NEIL B R O OKS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-17566 D.C . No. 2:10-C V-01034-TL

SUENOS LLC , a

n Illinois lim

ite d lia bility c om pa ny , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. DIANE GOLDM AN, a

Ne w Je rse y individual; e t a l., No. 13-17616 D.C . No. 2:10-C V-01034-TL

2De fe nda nts - Appe lle e s. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Tim Le ona rd, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 19, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, D.W . NELSON, a nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s. Sue nos, LLC a

ppe a ls a nd Dia n e Goldm an c ross-a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt following the

grant of pa

rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt a

n d a jury tria l ste m m ing from

the c olla pse of a re a l e sta te de a l to purc ha s e a

c ondom inium

(the Prope rty ) in Ariz ona . La wy e rs Title of Ariz ona , Inc . se p arate ly a p pe a ls. W e split the

two a ppe a ls for ora l a

rgum e nt: Sue nos v. Goldman a nd Sue nos v. La wy e rs Title . B oth a

ppe a ls a re re solve d in this me m orandum
. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re ve rse and re m and for a re -de te rm ination of a ttorne y ’ s fe e s owe d

Sue nos by

Goldm an. W e re ve rse a s to the distric t

c o urt’ s c onc lusion tha

t the “ hold ha

rm le ss” provision in the

purc ha s e c ontra c t wa s not e nforc e a ble and re m a

nd for a de t e rm i nation of whe the r Lawy e rs Title a p propria te ly c onc lude d tha

t the re wa s a

dispute ove r the e arne st m one y be twe e n Sue nos a

nd Goldm an . A. Sue nos v. Goldman 31. The distric t c ourt did not err in de c lining to rule a s a m atte r of la

w tha t the
se c o nd c o ntra c t

c o nstitute d undue risk to Sue nos. The issue of m itiga tion wa s a dispute d que stion of fa c t

prope rly subm itte d to thejury
. Fairw ay Builde rs, Inc . v . Malouf Tow e r

s Re ntal C

o. , 603 P.2d 513, 527 (Ariz . C t. App. 1979). Goldm an pre s e nte d e vide nc e that he r only inte ntion in ente ring the se c ond c ontra c t wa s to purc ha se the prope rty , not to lim it he r lia bility for bre a c h of the first c o ntra c t. Additional e vide nc e sugge sts tha t the se c ond c ontra c t wa s m o re favora b le to Sue nos tha

n the first. The re wa s no e rror. 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in de c lining to bifurc ate the tria l. Sue nos ha s fa ile d to a lle g e any

re a s on why it wa s m e aningfully pre judic e d by

the fa ilure to bifurc ate . The distric t c ourt found tha t e v ide nc e re l ate d to Sue nos’ s da m a ge s, Goldm an ’ s m itiga

tion de fe nse , a

nd La wy e rs Title ’ s bre a c h of fiduc ia ry duty and punitive dam a g e s c la im s ove rla ppe d. B ifurc ation is allowe d but not re quire d. Hangarte r v . Prov ide nt Life & Ac c ide nt Ins. C

o. , 373 F.3d 998, 1021 (9th C ir. 2004) (quoting Fe d. R . C iv. P. 42(b)). 3. The distric t c ourt did not err in its e vide ntia ry rulings. The

distric t c ourt prope rly a dm itte d e vide nc e tha

t Sue nos purc h a se d the prope rty in que stion for $1.27 m i llion a s we ll a s Sue nos’ s 2008 IR S Form 1065 a sse t s de c la

ra tion of $1,842.204.00. This e

vide nc e wa s re le va

nt to Goldman’ s m itiga

tion de fe nse and 4se rve d to re but Sue nos’ s c l a im that it c ould not ha ve a c c e pte d a

n offe r to purc ha se the p rope rty

for one m illion dolla

rs. M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt did not err in
a dm itting e vide nc e tha

t Sue nos re c e ive d no othe r offe rs to purc ha se the prope rty be fore Goldm an’ s offe r, a s tha t e vide nc e wa s re le va

nt to whe the r Sue nos m a de
re a s ona ble e fforts to m itiga

te its losse s in re

je c ting Goldman’ s se c ond offe r. The distric t c ourt prope rly a dm itte d e v i de nc e re ga

rding Goldman’ s he a lth,
a s tha t e vide n c e wa s re l e va

n t to he r pa rtic ula r inte re st in theprope rty . A distric t c ourt’ s in limine rulings a re not binding. Ohle r v . Unite d State s , 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000). The distric t c ourt did not err in a dm i tting e v ide nc e tha t Goldm an

ve rba lly
a c c e pte d Sue nos’ s c ounte roffe r a s to these c ond c ontra c t be c a use tha t e vide nc e wa s not offe re d to show the

se c ond c ontra c t wa s e nforc e a ble , but, ra

the r, re late d to whe the r Sue nos a c te d re a sona bly in m itiga t ing its da m a ge s. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not err in a dm itting e vide nc e a bout prope rty taxe s. Tha

t e vide nc e wa s re le va

nt to e va luating La

wy e rs Title ’ s c la im that it
re a s ona bly be lie v e d Goldm an ha d the right to c anc e l the c ontra c t. Aga in, in limine rulings a re not binding on the

distric t c ourt. Id
. 4. The distric t c ourt did not give e rrone ous jury instruc tions. Re vise d Ariz ona Jury Instruc tions (C ivil), 4th Edition 21 a n d 23 m i rror Ariz ona

la w. Se e Fairw ay 5Builde rs , 603 P.2d a t 525–26 (re lating to R

AJI 21); se e also C

oury Bros. Ranc he

s, Inc
. v . Ellsw orth , 446 P.2d 458, 463 (Ariz . 1968) (re lating to R AJI 23). 5. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Sue nos a ne w tria l . Sue nos ha s not e sta blishe d a ny va lid grounds for a

ne wtria l, suc h a s “ (1) m a nife st e rror of la

w; (2)
m anife s t e rror of fa c t; a

nd (3) ne wly

disc ove re d e vide nc e .” B row n v . W right , 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th C ir. 1978) (pe r c uriam ). 6. The distric t c ourt did not err in de c lining to strike Sue nos’ s m otion for
attorne y ’ s fe e s a s untim e ly . The tim e lim it wa s not jurisdic tiona l
. Se e Ariz ona Loc a l R ule 54.2(b)(2) (se tting duedate a s 14 da y s but a llowing alte rnative de a dline s); se e also Sc hw e ige r v . C hina Doll Re

st., Inc
. , 673 P.2d 927, 930 n.2 (Ariz
. C t. App. 1983) (holding tim e lim ita tion on sta

te m e nt of c osts is not jurisdic tiona l an d la

te filing is within c ourt’ s disc re tion). M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt found tha

t Goldm a n wa s not pre

judic e d by

the lat e filing. Sue n os wa s not re quire d to show e xc usa

ble ne gle c t. 7. The distric t c ourt a b use d its disc re tion in de t e rm i ning tha t Sue nos wa s the pre v a i ling pa

rty in its a c tion a ga inst Goldman. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t the pa rtie s ’ se ttle m e n t disc ussions we re ina dm issibleunde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 408(a ), a nd tha t the c ourt the re fore c ould not c onside r the m . The distric t c ourt e rre d. Se e Ingram v . Oroudjian , 647 F.3d 925, 927 (9th C i r. 2011) (pe r c uriam ) 6(holding a

c ourt m ay

“ c onside r[] se ttle m e nt ne gotia tions for thepurpose of de c iding a

re a sona ble attorne y

fe e award . . . .” ); se e also A.D. v
. C al. Highway Patrol , 712 F.3d 446, 460–61 (9th C ir. 2013); In reK e k a uoha-Alisa , 674 F.3d 1083, 1093–94 (9th C ir. 2012). On re m and, the distric t c ourt m ust de c ide whe the r to e x e rc ise its disc re t ion to c onside r the se ttle m e n t disc ussions, although it is not
re quire d to do so. The distric t c ourt a l so a

buse d its disc re t ion in re ly ing upon the “ ne t judgm e nt rule ” to de te rm ine the pre va iling pa rty . The “ ne t judgm e nt rule ” a pplie s only to c a se s involving c om

pe ting c la im s or c ounte rc l a im s. Be rry v . 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C

. , 261 P.3d 784, 788 (Ariz
. C t. App. 2011). On rem and, the distric t c ourt should inste a d a

pply e ithe r the “ tota lity

of the litiga

tion” or the “ pe rc e nta ge of suc c e ss” te st, se e Sc hw artz v . Farme rs Ins. C o. Of Arizona , 800 P.2d 20, 25 (Ariz
. C t. App. 1990), although this ne e d not ne c e ssa rily im pa c t the re s ult. B
. Sue nos v. La

wy e rs Title The distric t c ourt e rre d in finding the “ hold ha rm le ss” provision in the
c ontra c t une nforc e a

b le . The “ h old ha

rm le ss” provision wa s inc orporate d in a
c e ntra l unde rsta

nding of thete rm s of the e n ga ge m e nt be twe e n Sue nos a nd La wy e rs Title . Sue nos, not La

wy e rs Title , e xe c ute d a

n d de live re d the “ Title and Esc row” provisions of the

purc ha se c ontra c t. Sue n os a nd Goldm an dra fte d, ne gotia t e d, 7initia le d

e a c h pa ge , and signe d the purc ha se c ontra c t be fore La wy e rs Title wa s involve d. C

fArank i v . RPK Inv s., Inc
. , 979 P.2d 534, 538 (Ariz
. C t. App. 1999) (re le a s e provisions were une nforc e a ble a ga inst non-dra fting pa rty “ be c a u se the y do not a ppe a r to be ne gotia

te d te rm s” ). On re m a

nd, the distric t c ourt should de te rm i ne whe t

h e r Lawy e rs Title a

ppropria te ly c onc l ude d tha

t the re wa s a

dispute
ove r the e arne st m one y

be twe e n Sue nos a

nd Goldm an a

nd to wha t e x te nt Se c tion 7 of the Esc row Instruc tions a ffe c ts the lia bility of La wy e rs Title
. AFFIRM E D in par t; RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D in par t. All pa rtie s sha l l be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l.

8