NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BULLION MONARCH MINING, INC., No. 11-15479
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00612-ECR-
VPC
v.
BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE MINES, INC., MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Edward C. Reed, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 16, 2012
Submission Withdrawn June 13, 2012
Resubmitted April 22, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
We certified two questions of law to the Nevada Supreme Court in an order
filed June 13, 2012. Bullion Monarch Mining, Inc. v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines,
Inc., 686 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012). We certified the following questions:
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. Under Nevada law, does the Rule Against Perpetuities apply to an
area-of-interest provision in a commercial mining agreement?
2. If the Rule Against Perpetuities does apply, is reformation available
under Nevada Revised Statute § 111.1039(2)?
Id. at 1044.
The Nevada Supreme Court answered the first question in an opinion filed
March 26, 2015. Bullion Monarch Mining, Inc. v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc.,
No. 61059 (Nev. Mar. 26, 2015). The Court answered our first question in the
negative, concluding under Nevada law that the Rule Against Perpetuities does not
apply to the payment of area-of-interest royalties. Id., slip op. at 4. Because it
concluded the Rule does not apply, the Court did not answer the second question.
Id. at 11.
The district court based its summary judgment ruling in favor of Barrick on
its conclusion that the Rule Against Perpetuities applied, and that it voided the
area-of-interest royalty agreement that served as the basis for Bullion’s claim.
Bullion Monarch Mining, Inc. v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-
00612-ECR-VPC, 2011 WL 484295, at *8 (D. Nev. Feb. 7, 2011). However, the
Nevada Supreme Court has now contradicted the district court’s conclusion.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in the district court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2