CONTINENTAL TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an appellant waives any argument based on foreign law if they fail to cite or argue that law, even if the court can take judicial notice of it.
Appellant suggested California law should apply to an unenforceable contract, but cited no California law or made any arguments based on it. The distr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Arguments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The district court properly applied Georgia law to conclude that the agreement at issue here was, as a matter of law, an unenforceable contract. See Billings Cottonseed, Inc. v. Albany Oil Mill, Inc., 173 Ga.App. 825, 328 S.E. 2d 426 (1985).
Appellant suggests here, as it did below, that California (rather than Georgia) law should be applied. But appellant cites no California law and makes no argument based on California law. Although federal courts take judicial notice of the laws of every state in the Union, see Lamar v. Micou, 114 U.S. 218, 223, 5 S.Ct. 857, 859, 29 L.Ed. 94 (1885), this simply means that one relying upon the law of a foreign state need not formally plead or prove it, Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Carlson, 126 F. 2d 607 (10th Cir.1942). That federal courts can take notice of state law does not mean that a party relying upon such law need not cite it to the court or present argument based upon it; nor does having the power to take notice of state law mean that federal courts must scour the law of a foreign state for possible arguments a claimant—particularly a claimant with counsel—might have made. And we decline to do so.
An argument not made is waived, whether based on federal law, the law of the forum state, or the law of a foreign state. See Pruitt v. P.P.G. Industry, Inc., 895 F. 2d 734 (11th Cir.1990) (appellants waived argument that state rather than federal summary judgment standard should apply by failing to raise argument below, particularly where they failed to show different result would have been obtained). Appellant’s simple contention that California law controls does not present an argument based on California law. See Ordower v. Feldman, 826 F. 2d 1569, 1576 (7th Cir.1987) (issue raised perfunctorily without citation to authority constitutes waiver of issue); Fed.R.App.P. 28(a)(4) (“The argument shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.”). Any such argument appellant may have had, therefore, is waived.*
The district court’s grant of defendant-appellee’s motion for summary judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
*
Because we conclude appellant waived any argument based on California law it may have had, we do not address the district court’s determination that the choice-of-law provision in the agreement should not be enforced due to a lack of substantial relationship between California and the parties or the transaction or both. See Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. Goren Equipment Co., 576 F.Supp. 1348, 1354 (N.D.Ga.1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014)…entiary issue was abandoned on appeal because the appellant’s brief “contain[ed] only four passing references to the evidence ... each of which [was] embedded under different topical headings”); Cont’l Technical Servs., Inc. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 927 F. 2d 1198, 1199 (11th Cir.1991) (holding that “Appellant’s simple contention that California law controls does not present an argument based on California law” because an “issue raised perfunctorily without citation to authority constitutes waiver of [the] is…
-
Sunamerica Corp. v. SUN Life Assurance Co. OF Canada, 77 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 1996)…us. With one possible exception, SunAmerica does not even implicitly challenge any of the district court’s findings of fact. As this Court has held repeatedly, “[a]n argument not made is waived.” Continental Technical Servs. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 927 F. 2d 1198, 1199 (11th Cir.1991); see also, e.g., Stepak v. Addison, 20 F. 3d 398, 412 (11th Cir.1994) (holding that issue not addressed on appeal is waived); Roach v. M/V Aqua Grace, 857 F. 2d 1575, 1578 n. 1 (11th Cir.1988) (stating that district court’s fac…
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McCLAIN OF Ga., Inc., 138 F.3d 1418 (11th Cir. 1998)…s, summary affirmance on those findings is appropriate). Issues raised in a perfunctory manner, without supporting arguments and citation to authorities, are generally deemed to be waived. See Continental Tech. Serv., Inc. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 927 F. 2d 1198, 1199 (11th Cir.1991); Fed.R.App. P. 28(a)(4). Although the Company fails to address with particularity the remaining findings by the Board, when we read its briefs liberally, we find, with one exception, that the Company has not waived its challe…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lamar v. Micou, 114 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1885)
- Ordower v. Feldman, 826 F.2d 1569 (7th Cir. 1987)
- Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Carlson, 126 F.2d 607 (10th Cir. 1942)
- Pruitt v. P.P.G. Indus., Inc., 895 F.2d 734 (11th Cir. 1990)