Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0575-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mario DE VERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-16281
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 24, 2017
    Mario De Vera, Pro Se
    Aaron Lee Agenbroad, Esquire, Attorney, Karen Gal-Or, Attorney, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario De Vera appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. We have jurisdiction under to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on De Vera’s breach of contract claim because De Vera failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was a contract between the parties regarding travel benefits. See Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 246 Cal.App.4th 1160, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 390, 412 (2016) (setting forth elements of breach of contract claim); see also Moncada v. W. Coast Quartz Corp., 221 Cal.App.4th 768, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 601, 623 (2013) (subjective beliefs of parties cannot provide the basis for contract formation).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on De Vera’s breach of fiduciary duty claim because De Vera failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a fiduciary or confidential relationship existed between him and United Airlines. See Knox v. Dean, 205 Cal.App.4th 417, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 582-83 (2012) (setting. forth elements of breach of fiduciary duty claim).

We reject as unsupported by the record De Vera’s contentions that the district court did not address his allegations and that his complaint was not transferred to the district court.

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