T hi s di s pos i t i on i s n o t ap p ro p ri a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
R A H S A A N F R E E M A N , a n in d iv id u a l, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t,
v. U. S . B AN K N AT I ON AL A S S O C I A T I O N , d/b/ a U . S . B a nk, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 12- 35187 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 0
- c v - 0 1 5 4 4
- RSM
ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R i c a r do S . M a r t i ne z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y 8, 2013 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: H A W K IN S , T H O M A S , an d N G U Y E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P l a i nt i f f R a hs aan F r e e m a n ( “ F r e e m a n” ) appe a l s the s um m a ry j udgm e ntgr a nt t o d ef endantU . S . B ank N at i on al A ss o ciatio n (“ U . S . B ank” or “ the bank ”) . A l oan of f i c e rw ho ha d be e n t e r m i na t e d by U . S . B a nk t e n y e a r s e a r l i e rf orva r i ous c ode of cond uct/ ethics v io l at i on s, F re em an cont ends thatw hen U . S . B ank ext ended a new 

# FI LED JU N 07 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSIn W as hi ng t on , the el em ent s of prom i ss ory e st op pel ar e: 1 (1 ) a p ro m i se w h i ch (2 ) th e p ro m i so r sh o u l d reaso n ab l y e x p ectt o cau se the pr om i s e e t o c ha nge hi s pos i t i on a nd (3 ) w hi c h doe s c a us e the p r o m is e e to c h a n g e h is p o s itio n ( 4 ) ju s tif iab ly r e ly in g o n th e p r o m is e , in s u c h a ma n n e r th a t ( 5 ) i n j u s t i c e c a n b e a v o i d e d o n l y b y e n f o r c e me n tof the prom i se . H avens v . C &D P last i cs , Inc. , 8 7 6 P .2 d 4 3 5 , 4 4 2 ( W a s h . 1 9 9 4 ) ( in te rn a l b r a c k e ts om i tt e d) ( quot i ng Kl i nke v
. Fam ou s R ec i pe Fri ed Chi cken, Inc. , 616 P . 2d 644 ( W a s h. 19 80 )) . 2 offe r of e m pl oym entt o h i m , he re l i ed o n U .S . B an k ’ s r epre se nt at i on thati thad cond uct ed du e di l ig en ce an d thathi s pri or t erm i nat i on w ou l d n otpres enta probl em goi ng f orw a r d. F r e e m a n a l s o br i ngs a c l a i m f orne gl i ge ntm i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on f orthe 1
sa m e s t at em ent . W e a ff irm i n p art , re vers e i n p art , and rem and for further p ro ceed i n g s. V i ew i ng th e ev id ence i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the no nm ov i ng party, as w e m u s t, So re m ekun v. T hri f t y P ayl es s, Inc. , 50 9 F . 3d 97 8, 98 4 (9th C i r. 20 07 ), F r e e m a n ha s r a i s e d a m a t e r i a l i s s ue of f a c taboutthe ex i st enc e of a s pe c i f i c a nd
n a rr o w p r o m is e b y U .S . B a n k th a t th e b a n k h a d d o n e its d u e d ilig e n c e a n d th a t h is p r io rte r m in a tio n w o u ld n o t a f f e c t h i s n e w e m p lo y m e n t. Se e C o r e y v . P ie r c e Cn ty , 2 2 5 P .3 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 6
- 7 7 ( W a s h . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) . T he r e a s onabl e ne s s of F r e e m a n’ s r e l i an c e on thi s r e pr e s e nt a t i on i s not ne c e s s a r i l y de f

e a t e d be c a us e he r e c e i ve d a w r i tt e n of f er l et t er f

r om U . S . B a nk3

in f o r m i n g h i m th a t h is e m p lo y m e n t w o u ld b e a t- w ill. Se e Flo w e rv . T .R .A . I n du s ., Inc. , 111 P . 3d 1192, 1197, 1201 ( W a s h. C t . A pp. 2005) . M or e ove r , F r e e m a n doe s not c la im h e w a s o f

f e r e d in d e f

in ite e m p lo y m e n t w ith U .S . B a n k , o re v e n th a t h e c o u ld onl y be f i r e d “ f or c a us e , ” but tha thi s pa s tc onduc tw oul d notpr e s e nta pr obl e m goi ng f orw a r d. U nde rt h e ci rcu m s t a nc e s of thi s c a s e , a r e a s onabl e pe r s on c oul d vi e w the “at-w il l” ag re em en t a s ap p lyin g to all fo rw ar d -lo o k in g co n d u ct in v o lv in g F re em an ’s
n ew em p l o ym en tw i th U . S . B an k , an d n o tn ecessaril y i n co n si st e n t w ith th e ex p ress p r o m is e th a t F r e e m a n ’s p a s t c o n d u c t w o u ld n o t a g a in s e rv e a s a b a s is f o rh is te r m in a tio n . V i ew i ng the evi dence i n favor of F reem an , h e h as al so es t abl i shed a m at er i al que s t i on of

f a c tf or the j ury a s t o w he the r he c ha nge d hi s pos i t i on i n r e l i a nc e on the bank ’ s prom i se by i nform i ng se vera l bank s w i th w ho m he had been di sc ussi ng op en p o s i t i o n s th a t h e h a d a c c e p t e d a n o th e r o f f e r a n d n o t i f

y i n g c l i e n t s o f h i s c h a n g e t o U . S. B a n k . Se e W

e i tm an v . G r ange I

ns . A s s ’ n. , 370 P . 2d 5 8 7 , 5 89- 90 ( W a s h. 1962) ( f a i l ur e t o s e e k othe ri ns ur a nc e s uf f i c i e ntr e l i a nc e on pr om i s e t o s e nd not i c e of p o lic y ’s e x p ir a tio n ) ; cf
. H av e ns , 8 7 6 P . 2 d at4 4 7 (j u st i fi ab l e rel i an ce o rd i n ari l y aT he W a s hi ngt on c a s e s r e l i e d on by U . S . B a nk i n i t s br i e f r e ga r di ng f

or e goi ng 2 j o b o p p o rtu n i t i es are i n ap p o si t e b ecau se th ey d eal w i th cases i n w h ich n o ex p ress p r o m is e h a d b e e n m a d e . Se e , e . g. , R obe r t s v . A t l
. R i ch

f i eldC o. , 568 P . 2d 764, 769 ( W a s h . 1 9 7 7 ) . 4 que s t i on of

f a c t ) . T he r e i s a l s o a m a t e r i a l que s t i on w het h er j u st i c e r e qui r e s the 2
e nf or c e m e ntof the ba nk’ s pr om i s e : W a s F r e e m a n f or thc om i ng a nd truthf ul th r o u g h o u t th e in te r v ie w p r o c e s s to th e b e s t o f h is r e c o lle c tio n , a s h e c o n te n d s , o rd id he purpos e f

ul l y om i ti n fo rm at i on abouthi s pr i ort e rm i na t i on t o i nc r e a s e hi s odds of be i ng r e hi r e d? T he s e a r e f a c tque s t i ons tha t a r e i nappr opr i a t e f orr e s ol ut i on on sum m ary j ud gm ent . W e there fore re vers e the di stri ct co u rt’s grantof sum m ary j udgm e nti n f

a vorof U . S . B a nk on the pr om i s s ory e s t opp el cl ai m a nd r e m a nd f or fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. H ow e ve r , w e a f

f i r m t h e di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nton F r e e m a n’ s ne gl i ge nt m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on c l a i m . F r e e m a n c l a i m s the ba nk
m i s r e pr e s e nt e d ha vi ng c onduc t e d “ due di l i ge nc e ” r e ga r di ng hi s pr i ort e rm i na t i on, but do es no toffe r a ny evi dence thatthi s s t at em ent i s obj ec t i vel y f al se , as i ti s und i sput ed tha tthe ba nk di d unde r t a ke s om e i nve s t i ga t i on i nt o the t e rm i na t i on butm a ny r e c or ds ha d be e n de s tr oy e d due t o the l aps e i n t i m e . T ha tthe ba nk c oul d ha ve pos s i bl y done
m ore i nv es t i gat i on do es no t nece ss ar i l y m ea n i t di d no tdo enou gh , es peci al l y w here
e v e n F r e e m a n h im s e lf

d id n o t r e m e m b e rth e in v o lv e m e n t o f th e o n e p e r s o n w h o s till5

m a i nt a i ne d a ny r e c or d of the e ve nt . F ur ther, as u sed i n thi s c ont e xt , the t e rm “ due di l i ge nc e ” c a nnotbe pr ove n obj e c t i ve l y f a l s e , a s i tne c e s s a r i l y i nvol ve s a n e xpr e s s i on of opi ni on tha t the ba nk be l i e ve d i t ha d s uf f i c i e nt l y r e s e a r c he d the pr i ort e rm i na t i on. Se e E llio tt B a

y Se a fo o d s , I n c . v . P o r t o

f Se a ttle , 98 P . 3d 491, 495- 96 ( W a s h. C t . A pp. 2 0 0 4 ) ( c la im f

o rn e g lig e n t m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n d e f e c tiv e b e c a u s e c a n n o t p r o v e f a ls ity of st at em ent s w hen m ade) . AF F I RME D I N P AR T , RE V E RS E D I N P AR T , AN D R E MAND E D. E a c h p a r ty to b e a rits o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l.