Stahly

Stahly v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

Good Law
319 F. App'x 654
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 18, 2009No. 06-35041California1,063 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*656 MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs Dave Stahly and Mel Davis, who are trustees of (respectively) a Pension Trust Plan and a 401 (k) Plan administered by the United Association Local No. 290 Plumber Steamfitter Shipfitter Industry (“Union”), appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. Reviewing de novo, Dominguez-Curry v. Nev. Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.2005), we affirm.

1. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Defendant on the contract claims. The text of the 1999 written contracts is clear and unambiguous: Defendant did not agree to monitor generally the private investments of Capital Consultants, Inc. See Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or. 358 , 937 P.2d 1019, 1021 (1997) (holding that the first step of contract analysis is to examine the text and its context and, “[i]f the provision is clear, the analysis ends”). The contracts expressly state that private investments “are not included in this agreement.” In context, the term “this agreement” clearly refers to the whole agreement.

Even if the contract term were susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, the parties’ course of conduct…

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.