N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR TIN C ONSTR

UC TION, INC ., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R OSC O E STEEL & C ULVER T C O ., De fe nda

nt-third-pa

rty pla intiff - Appe lle e , v. LANE ENTER

PR ISES, INC ., Third-pa

rty -de fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-35177 D.C . No. 1:10-c v-00072-R FC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na R ic ha rd F. C e bull, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 8, 2013 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : SILVER

M AN, W . FLETC HER , a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc u it Judge s.



# FIL ED OCT 22 2013 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.M artin C onstruc tion, Inc . (“ M artin” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of de fe nda

nt R o sc oe Ste e l a

nd C u lve rt C om

pa ny (“ R osc o e ” ). W e re vie w de novo the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision on the inte rpre tation of the c ontra c t. Mille r v . Safe c o Title Ins. C o. , 758 F.2d 364, 367 (9th C ir. 1985). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ba s is supporte d by

the re c ord. Gordon v . Virtumundo, Inc . , 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a ffirm . This dispute

arise s out of Rosc oe ’ s de l ay e d pe rform a nc e of a c ontra c t to de live r ste e l pipe . The c ontra c t obliga te d R osc oe to supply

ste e l pipe to M artin, a sta te gove rnm e nt c ontra c tor building culve rts for a M o nta na highwa y . M artin c la im s tha

t R o sc oe did not initia

lly ship e n ough nuts a

nd bolts to a sse m

b l e the pipe , de l ay ing M artin’ s c om ple tion of thec ulve rt. M artin a lle ge s tha t the de la y c a use d m one ta

ry dam a ge s for whic h R o sc oe should behe ld lia ble . Para gra ph Four of the p a

rtie s’ c ontra c t pre c lude s M artin from re c ove ring c onse q ue ntia l dam a ge s for de la

y e d de live ry . M artin se e ks to re c ove r (1) liquida te d dam a ge s a sse sse d

a g a inst M artin by the M onta na De pa rtm e nt of Tra

nsporta tion (“ M DOT” ), (2) tim e and e xpe nse s inc urre d ne g otia ting with M DOT, (3) pa

ym e nts to c o m pe nsate M artin’ s subc ontra c tors for the de la y , a nd (4) “produc tivity

c osts” from c ontinuing to de dic ate pe rsonne l a nd e quipm e nt during the

de la y . C ontra ry to M a rtin’ s a rgum e nts, a ll of the se c la im e d da m a ge s a re c onse q ue ntia l da m a ge s 2unde r M onta na la w. Se e M ont. C ode Ann. § 30-2-715(2) (following the Uniform C om m e rc ia l C ode ). The re fore , the y are ba rre d by Para g ra ph Four of thec ontra c t . The liquida

te d da m a ge s and ne gotia

tion e xpe nse s a

re c onse que ntia l da

m a ge s be c a use the y we re “ inc urre d by

the nonbre a c h ing pa

rty in its de a lings . . . with third pa rtie s.” 67A Am . Jur. 2d Sale s § 1153; se eC

a n non Builders, Inc . v . Ric e , 888 P.2d 790, 793–94 (Ida ho C t. App. 1995); State

e x re l. C onc re teSale

s & Equip. Re ntal C o. v . K e nt N o w lin C onstr., Inc . , 746 P.2d 645, 649–50 (N.M . 1987). M artin’ s pa

ym e nts to its subc ontra c t ors a lso a rose out of its de a lings with third pa rtie s and so a

re tra d i tiona l c o nse que ntia l dam a g e s. Se e 67A Am . Jur. 2d Sale s § 1176; se ealso W

right Sc huc hart, Inc . v . C oope r Indus., Inc . , 40 F.3d 1247, 1994 W L 621889, a

t *2 (9th C i r. Nov. 8, 1994) (sta ting tha t “ a dditional subc ontra c tor c osts” are c onse q

u e ntia l da m a ge s); Frontline

Proc e ssing C orp. v . Am. Ec on. Ins. C o. , 149 P.3d 906, 911 (M ont. 2006) (de sc ribing fe e s pa id to third pa rtie s to inve stiga te e m p l oy e e fraud a s c onse q

ue ntia l da m a g e s). M artin’ s “produc tivity

c osts” we re c a

use d by its out-of-se que nc e work, e xte nde d ove rhe a d, a

nd a dditional e quipm e nt c osts. The se , too, a re c la ssic c onse q ue ntia l dam a ge s. Se eW

right Sc h uc hart , 1994 WL 621889, a t *2; 67A Am . Jur. 2d S ale s §§ 1177, 1190; a c c ord Unite d State s e x re l. Fe d. C

orp. v . C omme rc ial Me c h. C

ontrac tors , 707 F.2d 1124, 1125–26, 1129 (10th C ir. 1982). 3B e c a

use we a ffirm

on this ground, we

do not re a c h the grounds re lie d on by the d istric t c o urt. AFFIRM E D.

4