L. P. CHAMP; L. J. AMMERMAN, wife and husband v. Michael Jung, husband;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
L. P. CHAMP; L. J. AMMERMAN, wife
and husband
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MICHAEL JUNG, husband; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16249
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02168-ROS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs L. P. Champ and L. J. Ammerman brought suit against McKinsey
& Company and two foreign nationals who were never served, alleging fraud and
FILED
MAY 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

breach of contract claims related to an oil deal in Albania.1 The district court
dismissed the action as time-barred under Arizona’s statute of limitations and then
denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Plaintiffs’ primary arguments on appeal are that: (1) the district court should
have applied Switzerland’s ten-year statute of limitations because the underlying
contract is governed by Swiss law; and, alternatively, (2) the district court should
have ruled that exceptional circumstances preclude the application of Arizona law,
and then applied New York law. However, neither argument was raised in
response to McKinsey’s motion to dismiss and so the arguments are forfeited here.
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, we will
not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal. . . . [A]n
appellate court will not consider issues not properly raised before the district
court.”).
Moreover, even if the arguments were not forfeited, dismissal would still be
appropriate under Arizona’s statute of limitations. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 12-543(3),
12-544(3). McKinsey is not a party to the contract and so is not bound by the
1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not
recount them in detail here.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

agreement’s choice-of-law provision. See Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763
F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014); First-Citizens Bank & Tr. Co. v. Morari, 399 P.3d
109, 115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). The actual defendants who did sign the contract
have not been served, and so are not part of the proceeding here. Furthermore,
there are no exceptional circumstances in this case that justify the application of
New York law instead of the law of the forum state. Jackson v. Chandler, 61 P.3d
17, 18-19 (Ariz. 2003).
AFFIRMED.2
2 McKinsey’s separate motion to strike (Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED as
moot.
3

-- 3 of 3 --