Ash Grove Cement Co. v. LaFarge Corp.

Full title: ASH GROVE CEMENT COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 18, 2001

13 F. App'x 511 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

13 Fed.Appx. 511 (9th Cir. 2001) ASH GROVE CEMENT COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAFARGE CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and LaFarge Clanda, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant. No. 99-36071. D.C. No. CV-98-01155-JCC. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 18, 2001

Submitted June 11, 2001. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding.

Before B. FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and FISHER, 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.

Appellant LaFarge Corporation ("LaFarge") appeals the district court's award

Page 512.

of $8,872.57 to Ash Grove Cement Company ("Ash Grove") for reimbursement costs paid to Stoneway Concrete. The district court did not err in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Implicit in the district court's findings of fact is a determination that Ash Grove was under a legal obligation to reimburse Stoneway Concrete for its trucking costs. Because Ash Grove incurred a legitimate cost of operation as a proximate result of LaFarge's negligence and is not merely asserting the rights of a third party, we hold that Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927), is not implicated. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.