Sussex Financial Enterprises, Inc. v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG

MEMORANDUM

Sussex Financial Enterprises, Inc. appeals the grant of summary judgment against it on its fraud and RICO claims against the defendants (“HVB”). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and legal history of the case, we need not recount it here.

I

The district court properly excluded par-ol evidence of the alleged representations made by HVB prior to the execution of the credit agreement. A federal court deciding a state-law cause of action must apply the state’s parol evidence rule. See Jinro Am. Inc. v. Secure Invs., Inc., 266 F.3d 993 , 998-99 (9th Cir.2001). In California, the “parol evidence rule generally prohibits the introduction of any extrinsic evidence, whether oral or written, to vary, alter or add to the terms of an integrated written instrument.” Alling v. Universal Mfg. Corp., 5 Cal.App.4th 1412 , 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 718, 731 (Cal.Ct.App.1992); see also Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 1856(a). This rule applies in fraud as well as contract actions. Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun, 32 Cal.4th 336, 346 , 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 97 , 83 P.3d 497 (Cal.2004). The rule also applies against non-contracting third parties. Kern Cnty. Water Agency v. Belridge Water…