From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. State of Nev.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 19, 1996
87 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1996)

Summary

affirming denial of leave to amend where the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff of the alleged gender-discrimination was known to her at least seven months prior to her motion to amend

Summary of this case from Grasty v. San Juan Unified Sch. Dist.

Opinion


87 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1996) UNITED STATES of America, Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF NEVADA, Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-17123. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit June 19, 1996

Submitted February 15, 1996.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for District of Nevada, No. CV-93-00017-DWH; David Warner Hagen, District Judge, Presiding.

D.Nev.

AFFIRMED.

Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.

The district court didn't clearly err in finding Nevada negligent, as there was evidence that it knew there was a gravel-erosion problem despite the drain, but failed to correct it, S.E.R. 28; E.R. 113-14. See Barnett v. Sea Land Service, Inc., 875 F.2d 741, 745 (9th Cir.1989) (district court's finding of negligence reviewed for clear error).

Paragraph 15 of the lease does not exculpate Nevada from liability for its own negligence. That paragraph must be read together with paragraph 14 to avoid rendering paragraph 14 superfluous. See Brinderson-Newberg v. Pacific Erectors, 971 F.2d 272, 278-279 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 914 (1993). So read, the paragraphs provide only that the United States will indemnify Nevada for negligent acts of post office employees (paragraph 14) that occur during the existence of the lease (paragraph 15). E.R. 51-52.

The negligence of the United States was not an intervening cause, superseding Nevada's negligence, as it was foreseeable the United States would negligently fail to clean up the eroded gravel. See Van Cleave v. Kietz-Mill Minit Mart, 633 P.2d 1220, 1221 (Nev.1981).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. State of Nev.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 19, 1996
87 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1996)

affirming denial of leave to amend where the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff of the alleged gender-discrimination was known to her at least seven months prior to her motion to amend

Summary of this case from Grasty v. San Juan Unified Sch. Dist.
Case details for

U.S. v. State of Nev.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 19, 1996

Citations

87 F.3d 1325 (9th Cir. 1996)

Citing Cases

United States v. The Boeing Co.

, this Court provide the United States with notice and an opportunity to be heard before ruling or granting…

Sanchez-Sanchez v. United States

The Ninth Circuit decided, in an unpublished opinion, that the defendant, like Limon, was not entitled to a…