Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0484-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LIL’ MAN IN THE BOAT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUK TA SHAA DISCOVERY, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-17299
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted December 7, 2017 San Francisco, California
    Filed January 11, 2018
    Nevin Brownfield, David R. Ongaro, On-garo PC, San Francisco, CA, Lawrence Dale Murray, Murray & Associates, San Francisco, CA, J. T. Williams, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Howard Holderness, III, Katharine Malone, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Defendant-Appellee ■
    Before: SCHROEDER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ELLIS, District Judge.
    
      
      This case was submitted to a panel that included Judge Kozinski, who recently retired. Following Judge Kozinski's retirement, Judge Owens was drawn by lot to replace him. Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2.h, Judge Owens has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to oral argument.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Sara Lee Ellis, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation,
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lil’ Man In The Boat, Inc. (“Lil’ Man”) seeks remedies for breach of contract, claiming defendant, Auk Ta Shaa Discovery, LLC (“Auk Ta Shaa”), wrongfully refused to deliver the Queen of Seattle vessel after the parties had allegedly orally agreed to the terms of a purchase. The District Court dismissed the action. We affirm because, even if the District Court erred in dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction, Lil’ Man failed to state a claim.

There are at least'two reasons Lil’ Man failed to state a claim. First, there was never any agreement as to the terms of the purchase. Although Lil’ Man contends it accepted a “counter offer” from Auk Ta Shaa’s broker, the broker’s response to Lil’ Man’s offer was not a counter offer, but rather a suggestion that Lil’ Man offer more money. Second, the alleged written and agreed-upon contractual terms did not contain the signature of Auk Ta Shaa or its broker as required by the statute of frauds. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1624.5(a) (requiring sale of personal property over $5,000 to-be in writing and signed by party against whom enforcement is sought); Secrest v. Sec. Nat'l Mortg. Loan Tr. 2002-2, 167 Cal.App.4th 544, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 275, 281 (2008) (“A contract coming within the statute of frauds is invalid unless it is memorialized by a writing subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.