Opinion ID: 442924
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contractual Assumption of Successor Liability

Text: 18 The plaintiffs argue that there is a material factual dispute that rendered summary judgment improper. They contend that Unarco's agreement to indemnify PCC for claims arising from pre-sale operations by Unarco somehow raises an issue of fact as to whether PCC assumed liability for such claims. The plaintiffs, however, did not raise this issue before the district court. 19 An appellate court will not review an issue not raised nor objected to below unless necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Komatsu, Ltd. v. States Steamship Co., 674 F.2d 806, 812 (9th Cir.1982). In the Komatsu case, there was no manifest injustice because the appellant did not provide a reason for its failure to raise the issue below. Id. The same situation exists here. Therefore, we will not consider the plaintiffs' claim regarding PCC's contractual assumption of successor liability. 20 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.