Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Boracchia v. Biomet, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 9, 2009No. 08-15655Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWallace, Circuit Judge

I agree with my colleagues (1) that the district court correctly applied California’s choice of law principles to determine that the contract’s Indiana choice of law provision was enforceable; (2) that all of Bo-raeehia’s claims accrued in 1995 when Biomet’s letter terminating the contract was received; and (3) that summary judgment as to Boracchia’s California state statutory claims was proper. I must respectfully dissent from one part of the disposition, however, because I believe that Boracchia waived any argument regarding the applicability of the UCC to his breach of contract claim.

Our…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re E.R. Fegert, Inc., Debtor. Dan O'rourke, Trustee v. Seaboard Surety Company Coral Construction Company, Inc. Shotwell Paving CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  2. Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  3. Cornhusker Casualty Insurance v. KachmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API