From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Antuna v. American

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 16, 2007
232 F. App'x 679 (9th Cir. 2007)

Summary

finding the parties "waived their right to arbitrate by actively litigating their claim in state and federal court"

Summary of this case from Madrid v. Lazer Spot, Inc.

Opinion

No. 05-15912.

Argued and Submitted April 18, 2007.

Filed May 16, 2007.

Philip S. Gerson, Esq., Rawlings, Olson, Cannon, Gormley Desruisseaux, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Mark E. Ferrario, Esq., Tami D. Cowden, Esq., Kummer Kaempfer Bonner Renshaw, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-00811-LDG.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

This appeal stems from a dispute between a developer, American West Homes ("American West"), and several homeowners ("Homeowners"). Homeowners appeal the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. Homeowners appeal also the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of American West. We affirm.

We reject Homeowners' argument that the "Arbitration of Disputes" clause in their purchase agreements with American West requires this dispute to be resolved in binding arbitration. The record shows that Homeowners waived their right to arbitrate by actively litigating their claim in state and federal court. See Van Ness Townhouses v. Mar Indus. Corp., 862 F.2d 754, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (as amended); Nev. Gold Casinos, Inc. v. Am. Heritage, Inc., 121 Nev. 84, 110 P.3d 481, 485 (2005).

In addition, given the record before us, we cannot conclude that Homeowners set forth specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue for trial as to whether Homeowners were damaged on account of oral misrepresentations allegedly made by American West. Homeowners' conclusory statements on the issue of damages were insufficient to defeat summary judgment See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) ("When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."). Therefore, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of American West. AFFIRMED.

Because we find that Homeowners failed to establish a triable issue with respect to damages, we need not decide whether Homeowners should have been permitted to introduce parol evidence to show factual fraud.


Summaries of

Antuna v. American

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 16, 2007
232 F. App'x 679 (9th Cir. 2007)

finding the parties "waived their right to arbitrate by actively litigating their claim in state and federal court"

Summary of this case from Madrid v. Lazer Spot, Inc.
Case details for

Antuna v. American

Case Details

Full title:Dino ANTUNA; Lisa Antuna; Bradley Black; Lisa M. Black; Marcy Bloom…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 16, 2007

Citations

232 F. App'x 679 (9th Cir. 2007)

Citing Cases

Zweizig v. Nw. Direct Teleservices, Inc.

Even if Defendant could show that the Agreement applies to the claims against him, Defendant's attempt to…

Vesta Corp. v. Amdocs Mgmt. Ltd.

This argument fails because it is undisputed that a party may waive its right to arbitrate a dispute, unlike…