N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In re : SOUTH EDGE, LLC , De

btor.

__________________________________ C & S C OM PANY, INC ., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C YNTHIA NELSON, C ha pte r 11 Truste e of the Esta

te of South Edge , LLC ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-17255 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01607-LRHVC 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 Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 12, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED JAN 02 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2)(C ).B e fore : FISHER , R AW LINSON, a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. C & S C om

pa ny a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s de c ision a llowing C & S’ s c la im to proc e e d a s nonre c o urse , but ba rring re c o ve ry from South Edge ’ s ba

nkruptc y e sta te . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d)(1). R e v ie wing theba nkruptc y c ourt’ s rulings inde

pe nde ntly , N e ilson v . Unite d State

s (In reOlshan) , 356 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th C ir. 2004), we a ffirm . C & S argue s tha

t the ba nkruptc y c ourt m a de an e rror of la w, a nd the re fore a buse d its disc re tion, whe n it de te rm ine d tha t the Stipula

tion R e ga rding R e lie f from the Autom atic Sta

y una m biguously pre ve nte d

C & S from

re c ove ring a ga inst South Edge ’ s ba

nkruptc y e sta te . Se e K oon v . Unite d State

s , 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996) (“ The a

buse -of-disc re t ion sta

nda rd inc lude s re vie w to de te rm ine tha t the disc re tion wa s not guide d by e rrone o us le g a l c onc lusions.” ). W e hold tha t the ba nkruptc y c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion in susta ining theEsta

te ’ s obje c tion to C & S’ s proof of c l a im .
“ The inte rpre tation of a

se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt is gove rne d by princ iple s of sta te c o ntra c t la

w.” Bote fur v . C ity of Eagle Point , 7 F.3d 152, 156 (9th C i r. 1993) (c iting J e ff D. v . Andrus , 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th C ir. 1989)). Unde r Ne va da la w,

“ [a ] c ontra c t is a

m biguous only

whe n it is subje c t to m ore tha n one re a sona

ble 2inte rpre tation.” State e x re l. Masto v . Se c ond J

u d ic ial Dist. C

ourt e x re l. C nty . of W ashoe , 199 P.3d 828, 832 (Nev. 2009). C ontra ry to C & S’ s a s se rtion, the ba nkruptc y c ourt did not find tha

t the Stipula

tion wa s subje c t to m ore tha n one re a s ona ble inte rpre tation. Inste a d, the ba nkruptc y c ourt re pe ate dly sta

te d tha t the Stipula tion’ s te rm s we re “ c le ar.” W e a gre e with theba nkruptc y c ourt. In the Stipula tion, C & S prom ise d tha

t it would not “ e xe rc ise any right, re m e dy

or c la im ” a ga inst South Edge or South Edge ’ s ba nkruptc y e sta te . “ Any c la im ” una m biguously inc l ude s a

c la im m a de within ba

nkruptc y proc e e dings. A c ontra c t is not a m biguous “ sim

ply be c a use the pa rtie s disa gre e on how to inte rpre t the ir c ontra c t.” Galardi v . N

aple s Polaris , LLC , 301 P.3d 364, 366 (Nev. 2013). B e c a use the te rm s of the Stipula tion a re una m biguous, a

ny e xtrinsic e vide nc e of the pa

rtie s’ inte n tions with re spe c t to thosete rm s is irre le v ant. Se e K aldi v . Farme rs Ins. Ex c h . , 21 P.3d 16, 21 (Ne v . 2001) (“ Whe re ‘ a writte n c ontra c t is c le ar and una

m biguous on its fa

c e , e xtra ne o us e vide nc e c annot be introduc e d to e xpla in its m e a ning.’ ” (quoting G e o. B. Smith C h e m. W o rk s , Inc . v . Simon , 555 P.2d 216, 217 (Nev. 1976)). Furthe r, the ba nkruptc y c ourt did not a buse i ts disc re tion whe n it de nie d C & S’ s untim e l y m otion for a n e vide n tia

ry he aring. Se e Zuric h Am. Ins. C o. v . Int’l Fibe rc om, Inc . (In re Int’l Fibe rc om, Inc ) ,
3503 F.3d 933, 946 (9th C ir. 2007) (a ffirm ing ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s de nia l of a

n e vide ntia ry he a ring whe re a dditiona l e vide nc e wa s unne c e s sa ry for the de c ision). AFFIRM E D.

4