
    BULLION MONARCH MINING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE MINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-15479.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 16, 2012.
    Submission Withdrawn June 13, 2012.
    Resubmitted April 22, 2015.
    Filed April 24, 2015.
    Clayton P. Brust, Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Michael R. Kealy, Esquire, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Reno, NV, Brandon J. Mark, Michael P. Petrogeorge, Francis M. Wikstrom, Parsons, Behle and Latimer, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
    Before: THOMAS, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

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:

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, 345 P.3d 1040, 2015 WL 1402635 (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., 345 P.3d at 1041, 2015 WL 1402635, *1. Because it concluded the Rule does not apply, the Court did not answer the second question. Id. at 1044, 2015 WL 1402635, *5.

The district court based its summary judgment ruling in favor of Barrick on its conclusion that the Rule Against Perpetu-ities 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     