From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crestwood Capital Corp. v. Andes Indus., Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 29, 2019
No. 17-17219 (9th Cir. May. 29, 2019)

Opinion

No. 17-17219

05-29-2019

CRESTWOOD CAPITAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDES INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00600-NVW MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 14, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. --------

Andes Industries, Inc. ("Andes") appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Crestwood Capital Corporation ("Crestwood"), ordering Andes to pay Crestwood the amount due on a note. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom, 919 F.3d 1148, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2019), and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we omit them.

Andes argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because it has outstanding claims that could be used to support a setoff defense. Even if this were once true, we affirmed the dismissal of the claims Andes bases its setoff defense on in Andes Industries, Inc. v. Cheng Sun Lan, No. 17-17059, 2019 WL 2152825 (9th Cir. May 16, 2019). A potential setoff defense is therefore no barrier to the entry of summary judgment.

Andes also argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because it has a viable fraud defense to the enforcement of the note. However, the district court did not err in holding that this defense had been waived because Andes failed to plead it in its answer. See Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 389 F.3d 802, 819 (9th Cir. 2004) ("Failure to plead an affirmative defense . . . results in a waiver of that defense.").

Because these two arguments were the only grounds for reversing the district court Andes asserts, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Crestwood Capital Corp. v. Andes Indus., Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 29, 2019
No. 17-17219 (9th Cir. May. 29, 2019)
Case details for

Crestwood Capital Corp. v. Andes Indus., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CRESTWOOD CAPITAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDES INDUSTRIES…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 29, 2019

Citations

No. 17-17219 (9th Cir. May. 29, 2019)