N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
POR T OF VANC OUVER , USA, a W a shington port distric

t, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. PAC IFIC C OAST SHREDDING, LLC , a W a shington lim

ite d lia bility c om pa ny ; M ETR O M ETALS NOR THW EST, INC ., an Ore gon c o rporation,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 19-35954

D.C . No. 3:17-c v-05571-R B L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B
. Le ighton, District Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 1, 2020 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : B YB EE a

n d C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STEAR

NS, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED SEP 30 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Honora

ble R ic ha rd G. Ste arns, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of M a s sa c huse tts, sitting by de signa tion.M e tro M e ta ls Northwe st, Inc . a nd its sole

m e m b e r Pa c ific C oa s t Shre dding, LLC (c o lle c tive ly

“ M e tro M e ta ls” ) a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the Port of Va

nc ouve r, USA. W e re v ie w the distric t c o urt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t a

nd its a ward of da

m a ge s de novo. Brunozzi v . C able C ommc ’ns, Inc
. , 851 F.3d 990, 995 (9th C ir. 2017) (sum m ary judgm e n t

is
re vie we d de novo); Mac k

iev . Rie se r , 296 F.3d 909, 916–17 (9th C ir. 2002) (whe the r the distric t c ourt a pplie d the c orre c t le ga l sta nda rd in c om puting da m a ge s is re vie we d de novo). W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt ina sm uc h a s it de te rm i ne d M e tro M e ta ls wa s lia ble for the dam a ge it c a

use d to thec onc re t e doc k but va c ate the distric t

c ourt’ s a w ard of da

m a ge s a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in finding tha t the pa rtie s’ 2009 Shre d B e rm Expa nsion a nd R e pa ir Agre e m e nt im

pose d a duty

on M e tro M e ta ls to repa ir the
c onc re te doc k a

re a the n a nd in thefuture . The Agre e m e nt re quire d M e t ro M e ta ls to “ [r] e pa ir da

m a ge to the te rm ina l a

re a s use d for sc ra p ste e l ope ra tions” subje c t to the Port’ s e va luation of thee xte nt of the dam a ge s. M e tro M e ta ls a rgue s tha t
se ve ra l a m b iguitie s in theAgre e m e nt re nde r that c la use une nforc e a

ble
. W a shington la

we ndorse s the “ c onte xt rule ” ove r the so-c a l le d “p la in
m e aning rule ” to a sc e rta in c ontra c ting pa rtie s’ inte n t. B e rg v . Hude sman , 801 P.2d
2222, 229 (W a sh. 1990) (e n ba nc ). The c onte xt rule a llows thec o urt to c onside r
c e rta in e xtrinsic e v ide nc e to inte rpre t the c ontra c t’ s writte n te rm s. He arst C omm’ns, Inc . v . Se attle

Time s C o. , 115 P.3d 262, 267 (Wa sh. 2005) (e n ba nc ). Howe ve r, e xtrinsic e vide nc e m ay only be use d “ t o de te rm ine the m e aning of spe c ificw ords and terms use d and not to show a

n inte ntion inde

pe nde nt of the instrum e nt or to va

ry , c ontra dic t or m odify

the writte n word.” Id. (quoting Hollis
v . Garw a ll, Inc

. , 974 P.2d 836, 843 (Wa sh. 1999) (e n ba nc ) (inte rna l quota

t ions
om i tte d)). B oth the c onte xt a

nd pla in la

ngua ge of the pa

rtie s’ Agre e m e nt de m onstra te that M e tro M e ta l s wa s re sponsiblefor re p a iring da m a ge to the c onc re te doc k a re a . The c la use “ [r] e pa ir da

m a g e to the te rm i na l are a s use d for sc ra p ste e l ope ra tions”
c an only be re a sona

bly re a d one wa

y : M e tro M e ta ls wa s re sponsiblefor re pa iring
any dam a ge tha

t its sc ra p ste e l ope ra tion c a

u se d to the Port’ s te rm ina l a re a , inc l uding thec onc re te doc k. The a bse nc e of la

n g ua g e spatia lly

or te m pora l ly lim iting M e tro M e ta ls’ re s ponsibility doe s not re nde r the c la

use am biguous. M ore o ve r, e xtrinsic e vide nc e of the pa rtie s’ re lationship a

n d c ourse of de a ling furthe r supports M e tro M e ta ls’ duty to re pa ir. The ba sis for thepa rtie s’ 2009 Agre e m e nt wa s M e tro M e ta ls’ e xpa nsion a n d inc re a se d volum e tha

t ha d a lre a dy be gun to a ffe c t the c onc re t e doc k surfa c e . Lim i ting M e tro M e ta ls’ duty to re pa ir
3the t e rm ina l to da m a ge e x isting in 2009 or to e xc lude the c onc re te doc k

surfa c e would be inc onsiste nt with the c onte x t of the pa rtie s’ re lationship a

nd the te rm s of the a gre e m e nt. This is e spe c i a lly so give n tha

t M e t ro M e ta ls wa s a lre a dy

using the
c onc re te doc k, whic h wa s pa rtic ula rly vulne ra

ble to the sc ra

p ste e l e xp ort ope ra t ion. Thedistric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting sum m ary judgm e nt on the Port’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t

c la im
. 2. The distric t c ourt did e rr, howe ve r, in a warding thePort da

m a ge s. The que stion of da

m a ge s is ge n e ra lly

le ft to thejury

unle s s “ re a s ona

ble m inds c ould not diffe r.” C

1031 Props., Inc . v . First Am. Title Ins. C o. , 301 P.3d 500, 503 (W a sh. C t. App. 2013). Here , re a sona ble m inds c ould disagre e on the e xte nt of the
re pa irs attributa

ble to M e tro M e ta ls’ sc ra p ste e l ope ra t ion. M e tro M e ta ls’ e xpe rt witne s s subm itte d a

de c la ra tion tha t the Port’ s re pa irs e x c e e de d the dam a g e tha t the
sc ra p ste e l ope ra tion c a

use d to thedoc k. The distric t c ourt did not c onside r tha t te stim ony . The re fore , the re is a ge nuine issue of fa c t re ga rding whe the r the Port prove d its da m a ge s to a

re a sona ble c e rta i nty . Ac c ordingly , we AFFIRM IN PAR T, REVER SE IN PAR T , and REM AND for furthe r proc e e dings. Ea c h pa rty to be ar its own c osts.

4