N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
L. P. C HAM P; L. J. AM M E RM AN, wife and husba nd Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. M IC HAEL JUNG, husba nd; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-16249 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-02168-R OS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R osly n O. Silve r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

M ay 16, 2019 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , IKUTA, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs L. P. C ham

p a n d L. J. Am

m e rm an brought suit a

ga inst M c Kinse y & C om pa ny and two fore i gn na

tiona ls who we re ne ve r se rve d , a lle ging fra ud a nd 

# FIL ED M AY24 2019 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 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).bre a c h of c ontra c t c l a im s re l ate d to a n oil de a l in Alba

nia
. 1 The distric t c ourt dism isse d the a c tion a s tim e -barre d unde r Ariz ona ’ s sta tute of lim ita

tions a nd the n de nie d Pla intiffs’ m otion for re c onside ration. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. Pla intiffs’ prim ary

argum e nts on a

ppe a l a re tha t: (1) the distric t c ourt should have a p plie d Switz e rlan d’ s te n-y e ar stat ute of lim ita

tions be c a use the unde rly ing
c ontra c t is gove rne d by

Swiss la w; a nd, a lte rnative ly , (2) the distric t c ourt should have rule d tha

t e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s pre c lude the a

pplic at ion of Ariz ona

la w , and the n a

pplie d Ne w York la

w. Howe ve r, ne ithe r argum e nt wa s ra ise d in
re sponse to M c Kinse y ’ s m otion to dism iss a nd so theargum e nts a

re forfe ite d he re . Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ As a ge ne ra l rule , we will not c onside r argum e nts tha t a re ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. . . . [A] n a ppe lla te c o urt will not c onside r issue s not prope rly ra ise d be fore the distric t
c ourt.” ). M ore ove r, e ve n if the argum e nts we re not forfe ite d, dism i ssa l would still be
a ppropria te unde r Ariz ona ’ s sta

tute of lim ita

tions. Ariz . R e v. Stat. §§ 12-543(3), 12-544(3). M c Kinse y

is not a pa rty to the c o ntra c t a

nd so is not bound by

the

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s of this c a se , we do not re c o unt the m

in de ta il he re . 2a gre e m e nt’ s c hoic e -of-law provision. Se e N guy e n v . Barne

s & N obleInc ., 763 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th C ir. 2014); First-C itize ns Bank

& Tr. C o. v . Morari , 399 P.3d 109, 115 (Ariz . C t. App. 2017). The a c tua l de fe nda

nts who did sign the

c ontra c t have not be e n

se rve d , a nd so a re not pa rt of the proc e e ding he re . Furthe rm ore , the re are no e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s in this c a se that justify the a pplic ation of Ne w York la

w inste a d of the la

w of the forum sta

te . J ac k son v . C h andle r , 61 P.3d 17, 18-19 (Ariz . 2003). AFFIRM E D
. 2

2 M c Kinse y ’ s se pa

ra te m otion to strike

(Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED a s m oot. 3