United States ex rel. Henderson v. Nucon Construction Corp.

Good Law
7 F. App'x 584
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 20, 2001No. 99-15985; D.C. No. CV-90-00182-ACMCalifornia389 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM

C.W. Henderson Construction Company, C.W. Henderson and Wanda Henderson (collectively “Henderson”) appeal the district court’s order awarding Henderson no damages. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we do not recount it here except as necessary to explain our decision.

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its contract interpretation de novo. Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v. Barnes, 792 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir.1986). The facts are clear and Henderson does not dispute on appeal that Henderson breached the contract. The district court properly applied paragraph 2 of the contract which provided that Nucon Construction could pursue any remedies available under applicable law for Henderson’s breach. Accordingly, we reject Henderson’s argument that Nucon was not entitled to set-off damages available under Arizona law which applies here. 2 See Arizona Eastern R.R. Co. v. *585 Stewart, 17 Ariz. 227 , 149 P. 753, 754 (Ariz. 1915).

Henderson further argues that the district court erred in striking its expert testimony on demobilization…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.