Price
Ancala Holdings, L.L.C. v. Price
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
In this diversity action, Ancala Holdings, L.L.C. appeals the district court’s summary judgment for David Price, American Golf Corporation, National Golf Operating Partnership, L.P, and National Golf Properties, Inc. (collectively, “American Golf’), in Ancala’s action against American Golf to enforce the terms of various agreements, the first of which was executed in 1991, between Ancala and American Golf for the sale and management of a golf course known as the Ancala Country Club. The district court ruled that all of Ancala’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004). This court must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir.2004).
I.
The underlying facts are largely undisputed. In 1991, ACM Management Company, Inc. (“ACM”), predecessor in…
Concurrence in Part
Bybee, J.
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority’s finding that the district court properly dismissed Ancala’s claims as to the Barton fees. However, I disagree with the majority’s finding that the district court properly dismissed Ancala’s claims for breach of failure to operate the golf course as a premium private country club. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.
It is a generally recognized principle that “where a contract provides for continuing performance over a period of time, each breach may begin the running of the statute anew such that accrual occurs continuously.” 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 188 (2006); see also Airco Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 76 A.D.2d 68, 80 , 430 N.Y.S.2d 179 (N.Y.App.Div. 1980); 4 CORBIN ON CONTRACTS § 956 at 841 (1951). Although Arizona courts have not addressed the issue, many states have, and under facts similar to those presented here courts have recognized that the statute of limitations in cases involving continuing obligations accrues at each successive breach of the obligation rather than exclusively upon the first breach. See, e.g., Hi-Lite Prods. Co. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 11 F.3d 1402,…