The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in CLEMENS v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER, No. 06-56410, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of William C. Canby, Jr. and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges, and Roger L. Hunt, District Judge.

CANBY, Circuit Judge:
Keith Clemens brought this class action against DaimlerChrysler Corporation alleging that DaimlerChrysler breached express and implied warranties and committed fraud in the sale of Dodge Neon cars containing defective head gaskets from 1995 to 1998. The district court granted DaimlerChrysler’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the warranty claims. It also granted DaimlerChrysler’s motion for summary judgment on the fraud claims, holding that one claim was barred by the statute of limitations and the other failed on the merits. Clemens appealed all of these rulings, and we affirm. FACTS Clemens bought a new 1998 Dodge Neon from an independent Dodge dealership. After driving the car for approximately 50,000 miles, Clemens noticed that the engine had begun to leak oil. The oil leak worsened, and when the odometer reached 60,000 miles, Clemens performed some research on the internet and learned that head gasket failure (and resulting oil leaks) were a common problem on this model automobile. In September 2002, a Chrysler-authorized service center referred Clemens to a customer service hotline, which denied his request for a repair discount. Rather than pay for the repair, Clemens replaced the head gasket himself at a cost of $70, videotaping the repair process. He claims that, had he known the head gasket was likely to fail, he would not have purchased a Dodge Neon. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in L A BIOMEDICAL v. WHITE, No. 06-16229, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of Warren J. Ferguson, Stephen S. Trott, and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.

TROTT, Circuit Judge:
Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at HarborUCLA Medical Center (”L.A. Biomed”) appeals the entry of judgment resulting from a jury verdict in favor of defendant Dr. Geoffrey White in a contract dispute over ownership of a patent. L.A. Biomed alleges that the jury instructions contained a number of prejudicial errors. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand for a new trial. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in FAMILY HOME AND v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN, No. 06-56521, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of Alfred T. Goodwin, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.

GOODWIN, Circuit Judge:
Family Home and Finance Center, Inc., doing business as Park Place Funding, along with Daisy J. Phillips and Mark Gallagher (collectively “Park Place”) appeal the summary judgment in favor of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (”Freddie Mac”) on claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California Business & Professions Code § 17200, and defamation. Park Place also assigns error to the district court’s denial of its Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) request to defer ruling on Freddie Mac’s motion for summary judgment. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in NATIONWIDE TRANSPORT v. CASS INFORMATION, No. 06-15653 , a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of John T. Noonan, William A. Fletcher, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff-appellant Nationwide Transport Finance (Nationwide) appeals the district court’s judgment following a jury . . .

NOONAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting as to Part III:
This case involves the interaction of common law principles of agency and tort with the Uniform Commercial Code. It is of uncommon interest in its potential impact on credit in the large area in which factors furnish credit. Because the case may be seen as merely “a commercial dispute” to be decided under state law, its broader significance needs to be addressed. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY v. HERBERT SCHENK, PC., No. 06-15622oa, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of William C. Canby, Jr., David R. Thompson, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge:
In this appeal we decide whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to a professional liability insurer on a claim seeking a declaration of no coverage, and on counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith under Arizona law. The insurer argued that it could permissibly refuse to provide for its insured’s defense against a legal malpractice lawsuit because the insured failed to mention the possibility of the lawsuit in the insurance application. The district court agreed and held that Arizona Revised Statutes § 20-1109 permits a denial of coverage because the insured’s omission constitutes legal fraud. The court rejected the counterclaims because the insurer provided for the malpractice defense. We reverse and remand for trial. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND David and Cheryl Nolan and Tony and Shirley Wall formed a limited liability company in 2000 for the purpose of constructing and developing two commercial buildings. Due to poor management, the business failed shortly thereafter, resulting in a loss of over $2 million. In November 2001, the Nolans retained attorney Jack Hebert (Hebert) from Defendant-Appellant law firm Hebert Schenk, P.C. (Hebert Schenk) to represent them in connection with negotiations and any litigation that might arise out of the . . .

The opinion filed on March 18, 2008 is amended as follows:
At Slip Op. p. 2540, line 33, to p. 2541, lines 1-2, replace <construes ambiguity in insurance applications in favor of the insured, Stewart, 817 P.2d at 49, we must conclude that Question 10(c) elicits a subjective determination.> with <tends to construe ambiguity in insurance applications in favor of the insured, Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. DGG & Car, Inc., 2008 WL 382934, at *2, ___ P.3d ___ (Ariz. Feb. 14, 2008), Ques. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an amended order in BANK OF NEW YORK v. FREMONT GENERAL COPORATION, No. 05-56653, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:
This case arises from a commercial bank deposit contract involving an account in which funds were held to secure the payment of claims in the highly regulated world of workers’ . . .

The opinion filed on February 1, 2008, and published at 514 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2008), is AMENDED as follows:
Page 1019 After <BONY’s damages are therefore the $14 million that the bank was legally obligated to . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in WARNER BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION v. GOLDEN CHANNELS & CO., No. 05-55374, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of John T. Noonan, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:
This is a breach of contract case, involving breach of an agreement between a cable television broadcaster and a company licensing programming. Facts This is an appeal from a judgment following a bench trial. We take the facts from the findings and exhibits except as otherwise explained. Starting in 1990, Warner Brothers licensed television programming to Golden Channels, a cable television company in Israel. Golden was associated with two other cable television companies, and the three together, as Israel Cable Programming Ltd., coordinated their operations. For almost a decade, Warner and Golden made agreements lasting about one year. None of those are at issue. This case arises out of a contract made in 1999. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY, INC. v. UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC., No. 05-15672, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of Ronald M. Gould and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges, and Alfred V. Covello, Senior Judge.

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge:
In its complaint, Appellant Platt Electrical Supply, Inc. (Platt) alleged that Appellee Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL), a non-profit consumer safety group, negligently misrepresented and fraudulently concealed that defective in-wall heaters were safe. Platt challenges the district court’s grant of UL’s motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in SDV/ACCI, INC. v. AT&T CORORATION, No. 06-15860, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of William C. Canby, Jr., David R. Thompson, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

CANBY, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs SDV/ACCI, Tonia Metz and Gerald Metz brought this action against AT&T and one of its employees, Margaret Roman, alleging that Ms. Roman defamed the plaintiffs in the course of her employment. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the Metzes were not proper plaintiffs, and that the allegedly defamatory statements were conditionally privileged. It further ruled that SDV/ACCI, as the remaining plaintiff, could not defeat the privilege because there was no evidence that Ms. Roman made the allegedly defamatory statements with malice or without a good faith belief in their truth. The plaintiffs appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, and reverse in part. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff SDV/ACCI, Inc., is a company that provides clients with consulting and staffing services. Plaintiffs Mr. and Ms. Metz are the company’s CFO and CEO, respectively, and its sole shareholders. Effective February 1, 1999, defendant AT&T and SDV/ACCI entered into an agreement under which SDV/ACCI would provide temporary workers to AT&T and its subsidiaries. The agreement specified that all invoices would be payable by AT&T ten days from the date of receipt. The parties agree that over the life of the agreement, AT&T failed to pay many of these bills on time. In her affidavit, Ms. Metz claimed that she confronted AT&T procurement spe. . .

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge, concurring in part, and dissenting in part:
I concur in Part I of the majority opinion, affirming summary judgment as to the Metzes’ individual claims because they have failed to present evidence that any recipient of the emails actually understood them to refer to plaintiffs. I respectfully dissent, however, as to Part II.B because I would . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order in MURRY v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., No. 06-15847, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of Stephen Reinhardt, Melvin Brunetti and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.

We respectfully request that the Supreme Court of California exercise its discretion and decide the certified question set forth in Part I of this order. I. Question Certified Pursuant to Rule 8.548 of the California Rules of Court, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, before which this appeal is pending, requests that the Supreme Court of California answer the following question: Should issue-preclusive effect be given to a federal agency’s investigative findings, when the subsequent administrative process provides the complainant the option of a formal adjudicatory hearing to determine the contested issues de novo, as well as subsequent judicial review of that determination, but the complainant elects not to invoke his right to that additional process? The decisions of the Supreme Court of California and the California Courts of Appeal do not provide controlling precedent regarding the certified question, the answer to which will be determinative of this appeal. We understand that the Supreme Court of California may reformulate our question, and we agree to accept and follow the court’s decision. To aid the Supreme Court of California in deciding whether to accept the certification, we provide the following statement of facts and explanation. II. Statement of Facts Kevin Murray (”Murray”), a quality assurance auditor at Alaska Airlines (”Alaska”) brought safety concerns to the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration (”FAA”), which then conducted an investigation that revealed “signifi. . .