Peck Ormsby Construction Company v. City of Rigby
This text of 526 F. App'x 769 (Peck Ormsby Construction Company v. City of Rigby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
The City of Rigby is estopped from challenging the validity of the arbitration clause in the performance guarantee it received from Parkson Corporation. Even though the city never signed the guarantee, it “cannot accept [its] benefits ... and at the same time question its validity.” 28 Am.Jur.2d Estoppel and Waiver § 60 (2013); accord 9 U.S.C. § 2; Nghiem v. NEC Elecs., Inc., 25 F.3d 1437, 1439 (9th Cir.1994); Justad v. Ward, 147 Idaho 509, 211 P.3d 118, 121 (2009); Billings v. City of Orlando, 287 So.2d 316, 318 (Fla.1973). The city received the guarantee and installed the guaranteed product years before it ever objected to any part of the guarantee. By suing, the city now seeks to further enjoy the benefits of the guarantee, yet avoid its burdens by refusing arbitration. This it cannot do. See also Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436 F.3d 1098, 1101-02 (9th Cir.2006); Int’l Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen GMBH, 206 F.3d 411, 414, 417-18 (4th Cir.2000). The district court shall order the parties to arbitrate any claims covered by the performance guarantee.
REVERSED.
This disposition isn’t appropriate for publication and isn’t precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
526 F. App'x 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-ormsby-construction-company-v-city-of-rigby-ca9-2013.