Universal Trading & Investment v. Petro Kiritchenko

MEMORANDUM

Universal Trading & Investment Company (“UTICo”) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for relief from judgment and the district court’s order that certain parties could recover on UTICO’s attachment bonds. We affirm.

Initially, we note that the district court’s previous decision (Kiritchenko I) on summary judgment was affirmed by us in Universal Trading & Investment Co., Inc. v. Kiritchenko (Kiritchenko II), 346 Fed. Appx. 232 (9th Cir.2009). Our decision in that case had two bases. As we stated: “The purported assignment of claims by Ukraine was a sham.... Even were it not, [UTICo] failed to prove the assignment was valid under Ukrainian law.” Kiritch-enko II, 346 Fed.Appx. at 232 .

UTICo fails to present an argument regarding the first ground in Kiritchenko II, even though Kiritchenko did raise the issue in the answering brief. Our decision in Kiritchenko II is the law of the case. See Disimone v. Browner, 121 F.3d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir.1997); see also Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 , 389 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

UTICo fares no better on the alternative ground. It sought relief from the judgment in Kiritchenko I on the basis that one of the…