09 -26 27 -cv

Am er ic an H

ote l G roup v. CG U Ins uranc e Com pany UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R ul i ngs by s umm ary order do not hav e prece denti al ef fect . C i t ati on t o a s umm ary order f i l ed on or aft er Ja nua ry 1 , 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m itte d a n d is g o v e r n e d b y F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .1 a n d th is c o u r t’ s L o c a l R u le 32 . 1 . 1 . W h e n c i t i n g a s u m m a r y o r d e r i n a d o c u m e n t f i l e d w i t h t h i s c o u r t , a p a r t y m u s t c i t e e i t h e r t h e Fe de ral A p p en d i x o r a n elec tro n i c da ta b a se (w i th th e no ta tion “ su m m a ry o rd er ” ). A p a rty citi n g a su m m a ry o rd er m u st se r v e a c o p y o f it o n a n y p a r ty n o t r e p r e se n te d b y c o u n se l. 1 At a stated te rm of the United States Co u rt o f Appea ls for the Sec ond Circuit, held at the 2 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan United States C ourthouse, 500 P ear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on 3 the 12 day

of Mar ch, two thousand ten. th 4 5 PRES ENT: 6 7 J OHN M. WAL KER, J R., 8 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 9 GERARD E. L YNCH, 10 Circ uit J ud ge s. 11 12 13 A M E R IC A

N H O T E L IN T E R

N A T IO N A L 14 GROUP, I

NC., ARAMARI

NE B ROKERAGE, 15 I NC., ARA PURCHASI

NG GROUP, I

NC., 16 ASTA PG, I

NC., L I VERY PG, I

NC., NAA 17 PURCHASI

NG GROUP, I

NC., RESTAURANT 18 GROUP, DOI

NG B USI NESS AS R ESTAURANT 19 GROUP DELAWARE, I NC., and SI L VER CAR 20 PUR CH ASI

NGGR OU P, I

NC . 21 Plain tif f- Cou nte r-

De fe nd an ts , 22 23 ARAMARI

NE, B ROKERAGE, I

NC., 24 Plaintif f-Counter-Defe ndant-Appellant , 25 26 -v.- No. 09-2627-c v 27 Summary Orde r 28 29 ONEB EACON I

NSURANCE COMPANY, 30 Defendant- Movant-Counter- Claimant-Appellee , 31 32 CGU CORPORATI ON, 33 Defendant , 34 35 POT OM AC I

NSU RA NC E CO MPA

NYOF I L L I

NO I S, 36 Defendant- Counter-Claimant . 37 38This ear lier judg ment was e ntere d by the late Richa

rd C. Casey , United States District 1 J udg e for the Southern District of Ne w York. The case was re assig ned to J udg e McMa hon following J udg e Casey ’s death. 2 1 Kenne th J . Kelly (Jennifer M. Horowitz , on the brief ), Epstein B ecke r 2 & G ree n, P.C., New York, NY, for Plain tif f- Cou nte r-

De fe nd an t3 Appellant . 4 5 Richard I . I fft (B enjamin J oseph Theisman, on the brief ), Wile y Re in 6 L L P, W ashing ton, DC; Greg ory J . Castano, Castano Quig ley , L .L .C., 7 West Caldwell, NJ , for De fe nd an t- Mo v an t- Cou nte r- Cla im an t8 Appellee . 9 10 11 UPON DUE CONSI DERATI ON, it is here by ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED 12 that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF FI RMED. 13 Plaintiff-Counter-De fenda nt-Appellant Ar amar i n e B roker ag e, Inc. (“ Aramarine” ), an 14 insuran c e a g e n t an d b r o k e r , a p p e a ls f r o m a ju d g me n t o f th e U n it e d St a te s D is tr ic t Co urt f or the 15 Southern District of Ne w York ( McMahon, J. ) g ra nting Def e nd ant- Mo va

nt- Counte r- Cla ima

nt16 Ap pe lle e On e B e a c on I ns ur anc e Com pa ny (“ On e B e a c on ” ) s umm ary jud g me nt o n it s c ounte rc la im. 17 We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with the underlying f

acts a nd proce dural history

of the c as e, 18 which we ref

ere nce only

as nec essar

y to expl ain our de cision. 19 In a previous appea l to this Court, Arama rine c halleng ed the district cour t’s deter mination 20 that an alleg ed ora l ag ree ment for m i n g t h e basis of Ara marine’ s claims ag ainst OneB eac on was 21 g ov e rn e d by Ne w Yo rk law an d fa ile d to sat isf y the State ’s statut e of

fr a ud s. Aramarine Broke rage, 1 22 Inc. v. OneBe acon Ins. Co. , 307 Fe d. App’x 562, 563 (2d Cir. 2009). Arama rine a lso challeng ed the 23 district court’s de termination that another alleg ed ora l ag ree m en t (the “ Elmasri-F rey berg er 24 Ag ree ment”), which formed t h e basis of Arama rine’s de fense to OneB eac on’s counter claim, was 25 simil arly g overne d by New Y ork law a

nd equally

void. Id. This Court’s summary order vacated the 26 district court’s judg ment o n th e gr o u n d th a t t he ora l ag ree ment underpinningAramarine’ s claims was3

1 g overne d by Pennsylvania law, and not void under that State’s statute of f rauds. Id. at 564-65. But 2 we did not speak direc tly to OneB eac on’s counter claim or the Elmasri-Fr ey berg er A g ree ment. Nor 3 did

thi s Co ur

t a dd re ss t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a lte rn a tiv e fi nd ing , a dd re sse d o nly

in a fo otn ote to 4 On e B e a c on ’s br ie f a nd in A ra mari ne ’s re ply

br ie f, that th e El ma sr i- F re y be rg e r Ag re e me nt, e ve n if 5 valid under the statute of fr auds, would have failed f or wa nt of consider ation. Id. 6 On re mand, t he dis trict court de termined that our c onclusion reg ardingthe cor rec t choice of 7 law for

the first alleg ed ora l ag ree ment nece ssarily g o v er ned choic e of la w for the 8 El ma sr i- F re y

be rg e r A g re e me nt, and

a c c or din g ly

c on c lud e d th a t th e statut e of fr a ud s w a s n o b ar t o 9 the validity

of the latter

as a de fense to OneB ea co n ’s coutner claim. The c ourt also conc luded, 10 howeve r, t hat our order did not addre ss its previous, alternative holdi ng that the Elmasri-F rey berg er 11 Ag re e me nt f

a ile d f or wa nt o f c on sid e ratio n. Af

te r re vie wi ng the re qu ir e me nts of the law o f t

he c a se 12 doctrine, the court elected to adher e to its “no consideration” holding, and ag ain enter ed summary 13 judgme nt in favor of OneB eac on on its c ounterc laim be fore proce eding to tr ial o n Ar am ar i ne’s 14 claims. 15 Aramarine nowargues th at the district court fa iled to comply with our previous mandate, 16 contendingthat our order, by vacating the district c ourt’s judg ment in its entirety , impliedly reje cted 17 the district court’s al ternative holding. It further asser ts that the district court er red by even 18 consideringthe lack of considera tion a rgument, beca

use it wa s orig inally

prese nted to J udg e Casey 19 by

way of One Be acon’ s reply brief in support of summary judgme nt. Finally , Aramarine a rgues that 20 even if

our summary

order left the a lternative holdingundisturbed and the argument supporting that 21 ho ld ingwa s p ro pe rl y c on sid e re d b y

the dis tr ic t c ourt

in t he fi rs t in sta

nc e , th e c ourt

a bu se d it s 22 discretion in adhe ringto that holding. F or the followingrea sons, we disag ree .4

1 “ Un de r t

he do c tr ine of

law o f t he c a se , a dis tr ict c ourt

g e ne ra lly may no t de viate fr om a 2 mandate issued by an appe llate court, and the appellate court retains the rig ht to control the ac tions 3 of the district cour t where the m andate has been misconstrued or has not been give n full eff ect.” In 4 r e Ivan F. Boesky Sec. Litig. , 957 F.2d 65, 69 ( 2d Cir. 1992) (interna l citations omit ted). 5 Acc ording ly , this Court “retains the authority to deter mine whether the t erms of the mandate have 6 been ‘ scrupulously and fully car ried out,’” id. (q u o t i n g Un ite d Sta te s v . E. I. Du Po nt DeNe mo ur s 7 &Co. , 3 66 U. S. 3 16 , 3 25 (1 96 1) ), and re views th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt de novo for 8 compliance with the mandate, Carroll v. Blinke n , 42 F.3d 122, 126 ( 2d Cir. 1994). 9 Aramarine is correc t that a finding t hat has been vacated ceases to be the law of the case , and 10 that this includes a finding not expressly addre ssed but nece ssarily reje cted by

an appe llate cour

t’s 11 rea soning. See U

nited States v. Minicone , 994 F.2d 86, 89 (2d C ir. 1993). Yet it i s equally true that 12 the finding s of a district court not expressly or i mplicitly addre ssed on appea l rema in the law of the 13 case . Se e In rePCH As so cs. , 94 9 F. 2 d585, 593 (2d Cir. 1991). Our previous summary

order 14 ref

ere nced O neB eac on’s counter claim only in descr ibing the extent of the district court’s orde r, and 15 expressly

addre ssed only

the ora l ag ree ment related to Aramarine’ s primary claims. Moreove r, we 16 ca re fu l l y

qu al i fi edth e s co p e o f o ur o rd er , s t at i n g: 17 We express no views on whether Aramarine obta ined an or al ag ree ment, and if so, 18 what we re its terms. Nor do we e x press a

view on whe ther a

ny oral a g ree ment made 19 was a

modification of the B roker ’s Ag ree ment. We simpl y note th at b ecause the 20 district court assumed the alleg ed oral ag ree ment to be a modification of the B roker ’s 21 Ag ree ment, which spec ified a c hoice of Pennsylvania law, in the absence of rea sons 22 for r ejec ting the choice of l aw made by the parties, the district court should enf orce 23 such a c ontrac tual choice of law. 24 25 Aramarine Broke rage , 307 Fe d. App’x at 565. W hile, on rema nd, this analy sis necessa

rily dictated 26 choice of law w ith respec t to the Elmasri-Fr ey berg er A g ree ment as we ll, see 18B Char les Alan 27 Wright, Arthur

R. Mill er & Edwar d H. Cooper, Fe dera l Practice & Proc edure § 4478, at 662-63 (2d5

1 ed. 2002) ( “I f the a naly sis used to dispose of an is sue before the court c ontrols disposit ion of an issue 2 that was not considere d . . . the l aw of the case established by the ana ly sis may

control disposition 3 of the ne w issue.”) , it did not purport to address the district cour t’s alternative holding that the 4 El ma sr i- F re y

be rg e r a g re e me nt w a s not sup po rt e d by c on sid e ra tio n. Th e dis tr ic t court did no t er r i n 5 deter

mining that our or der le ft that holding undisturbe d. 6 We turn next to Aramarine’ s contention t hat t he dis trict court e rre d by consideringthe “no 7 consideration” argument in the first instance, beca use the ar g ument was fir st raised in a r eply brief. 8 Th is a ssi g nme nt o f er ro r is unti me ly . “ Un de r [the law of the c a se ] do c tr ine , a d e c isi on ma de a t a 9 pr e vio us sta g e of

lit ig a tio n, wh ic h c ou ld h ave be e n c ha lle ng e d i n th e ens ui ng a pp e a l but w a s n ot, 10 become s the law o f t h e ca s e; the par ties are deeme d to have wa ived the rig ht to challeng e that 11 decision, for

‘[i] t would be absurd that a par ty who has c hosen not to argue a point on a f irst appea l 12 should stand better a s reg ards the la w of the c ase tha

n one who ha d argued and lost.’” Co u nty of 13 Suffolk v. Stone &W ebster Eng’g Corp. , 1 0 6 F. 3 d 1 1 1 2 , 1 1 1 7 ( 2 dC i r. 1 9 9 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Fogel v. 14 Che

stn utt , 6 68 F .2 d 1 00 , 1 09 (2 d Ci r. 19 81 )) . A s A ra mari ne a dmi ts, the op e nin g bri ef of it s f ir st 15 appea l “ treated the ‘alter native’ basis [for the district c ourt’s dec ision] as a nullity .” Appe llant’s Br . 16 at 14. Acc ording ly , Ar am ar ine is no longe r in a position to challeng e the district cour t’s decision 17 to c on sid e r t

he “ no c on sid e ratio n” argum e nt t hat in fo rm e d it s h old ing . F or the same re a so ns , 18 Aramarine’ s argument that J udg e McMa hon should not have treat ed J u d ge C asey ’s ruling on 19 c on sid e ratio n a s th e law o f t he c a se is i nc or

re c t. 20 We h ave c on sid e re d a ll o f Ara mari ne ’s oth e r a

rgume nts and

fi nd the m to be wi tho ut m e ri t. 21 22 For

the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the district cour t is hereby

AFF I RMED. 23 24 FOR THE COURT: 25 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 26