NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAY 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RIVERCARD, LLC, No. 15-16794
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:13-cv-02123-LDG-NJK
v.
SCOT PATRIQUIN and PATRIQUIN MEMORANDUM*
LAW PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 12, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and WILKEN,** Senior
District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Claudia Wilken, United States Senior District Judge
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Page 2
1. “A party who intends to raise an issue about a foreign country’s law
must give notice by a pleading or other writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. Notice
must be given “at a time that is reasonable” and “generally . . . before or during the
pretrial conference.” DP Aviation v. Smiths Indus. Aerospace & Def. Sys. Ltd.,
268 F.3d 829, 847 (9th Cir. 2001). Patriquin twice invoked Ontario’s statute of
limitations: as an affirmative defense in its answer and in its motion for summary
judgment. Because both of those pleadings were filed before the district court
scheduled a pretrial conference, Patriquin provided reasonable notice of Canada’s
statute of limitations.
2. Nothing in the record suggests that the parties chose Ontario law in
bad faith and in an attempt to evade Nevada law. See id. Moreover, Ontario has a
substantial relationship to the escrow agreement. See Williams v. United Servs.
Auto. Ass’n, 849 P.2d 265, 266 (Nev. 1993). Patriquin Law, a Toronto law firm,
released the escrow funds to Post Oak Productions, Inc., an Ontario-based
corporation. Finally, the district court’s deference to Ontario law is consistent with
Nevada’s public policy interest in “protecting the freedom of persons to contract.”
Hansen v. Edwards, 426 P.2d 792, 793 (Nev. 1967). The escrow agreement’s
Page 3
choice-of-law provision is therefore valid under Nevada’s three-factor test. See
Engel v. Ernst, 724 P.2d 215, 217 (Nev. 1986).
AFFIRMED.