Case Name: AEQUADIS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HCL AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-14
Citations: 711 F. App'x 425
Docket Number: No. 16-17337
Parties: AEQUADIS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HCL AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: N.R. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KEELEY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 711
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
AEQUADIS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HCL AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-17337
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted December 5, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed February 14, 2018
Peter Roldan, Christopher Wimmer, Emergent LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Ayse Kuzucuoglu, Vedder Price LLP, San Francisco, CA, Chad Schiefelbein, Vedder Price P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: N.R. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KEELEY, District Judge.
This case was submitted to a panel that included Judge Kozinski, who recently retired. Following Judge Kozinsld’s retirement, Judge N.R. Smith was drawn by lot to replace him. Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2.h. Judge Smith has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to oral argument.
The Honorable Irene M. Keeley, United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In this diversity action by AeQuadis, Inc. against HCL America, Inc. asserting breach of contract and unjust enrichment, the district court granted summary judgment to HCL, holding that AeQuadis had assigned all of its rights under the relevant contract to a third party. We have jurisdiction of AeQuadis' appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Under Illinois law, "whether an assignment of contract rights has occurred is a function of the intent of the parties." McHenry Hosp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 578 F.Supp. 122, 124 (N.D. Ill. 1983). If an assignment is memorialized in a clear and unambiguous writing, a court must determine the intention of the parties solely from the plain language of the contract. Cf. Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs., Inc., 295 Ill.App.3d 17, 229 Ill.Dec. 361, 691 N.E.2d 834, 844 (1998).
AeQuadis entered into a Master Purchase and Sale Agreement with Bibby Financial Services (MidWest), Inc. ("Bibby"), in which it assigned "all of [AeQuadis'] right, title and interest" in its existing and future accounts to Bibby. " '[A]1F is an all-encompassing term and leaves little doubt as to what rights the [plaintiffs] assigned to the [third party] and what rights they retained. In short, 'all' means all." Knott v. McDonald's Corp., 147 F.3d 1065, 1067 (9th Cir. 1998). Because the assignment by AeQuadis plainly transferred, to Bibby "all" accounts, the district court did not err in concluding that AeQuadis has no further rights in those accounts.
AFFIRMED.
^his disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule.36-3.