N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOHN M . FLOYD & ASSOC IATES, INC , a Te xa s c orporation, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. TAPC O C REDIT UNION, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-35307 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-05946-B HS
M EM O R ANDUM *

JOHN M . FLOYD & ASSOC IATES, INC , a Te xa s c orporation, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. TAPC O C REDIT UNION, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-35325

D.C . No. 3:10-c v-05946-B HS

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED AUG 21 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 12, 2013 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KLEINFELD, M . SM ITH, a nd N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. John M . Floy d & Assoc iate s, Inc . (“ JM FA” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t in fa

vor of TAPC O C re dit Union (“ TAPC O” ). JM FA spe c ia liz e s in a

n ove rdra ft prote c tion softwa re tha t a llows fina

nc ia l institutions to ge ne ra te a dditional non-inte re st re ve nue , for whic h JM FA is pa id a c om m ission. JM FA c ontra c te d with TAPC O to install JM FA’ s Ove rdra ft Privile ge Program in TAPC O . Alle ging tha

t TAPC O fa i le d to pa

y unde r the c ontra c t, JM FA brought four c la im s a g a inst TAPC O: (1) bre a c h of c ontra c t, (2) a c c ounting, (3) unjust
e nric hm e nt, a

nd (4) bre a c h of the duty

of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a ling. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. W e re vie wde novo thedistric t c ourt’ s orde r gra nting sum m a ry judgm e nt. Univ e rsal He alth Se rv

s., Inc . v . Thompson , 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th C ir. 2004). In opposing sum

m ary judgm e nt, JM FA fa ile d to pre s e nt e vide nc e c ogniz a ble unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 56(c )(4) that TAPC O im ple m e nte d or c ontinue d to
use JM FA’ s se rvic e s, produc t s, or re c om m e ndations a fte r the c ontra c t te rm inate d on De c e m

be r 31, 2007. Se e C

e lote x C orp. v . C atre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). JM FA m ay

not re l y on the unve rifie d a lle gations in its c om pla int to de fe at

2sum

m ary judgm e nt. Se e Le w

v . K ona Hosp. , 754 F.2d 1420, 1423 (9th C ir. 1985). The Floy d de c la

ration, upon which pla i ntiff la rge ly re lie s to e s ta

blish a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t, se t s out m e re spe c ulation for thec ritic a l fa c ts, without a showing of founda

tion in persona l knowle dge , for the fa c ts c l a im e d to be at issue
. As did thedistric t c ourt, we re je c t the sta

te m e nts submitte d by

JM FA a s unsubsta ntia t e d. Se eSc how e nge rdt v
. Unite d State s , 944 F.2d 483, 489 (9th C ir. 1991). JM FA furthe r a sse rts tha t, ba se d on TAPC O’ s fe de ra l a nd sta te fina nc ia l filings, Floyd be lie v e s tha t “ TAPC O ha s ge ne rate d m ore tha n $1,000,000 in
a dditional non-inte re st inc om e or re ve nue from its useof [JM FA’ s]
re c o m m e ndations, produc ts a

nd/or se rvic e s.” Howe ve r, be c a use the re is no founda tion to link the

filings to JMFA’ s re c om m e ndat ions, produc ts, or se rvic e s, Floy d’ s une xpla ine d

be lie f is a lso insuffic ie nt to survive sum m ary judgm e nt. While the re is no dispute

tha t TAPC O ha s ge ne rate d non-inte re st inc om e a fte r the
c ontra c t wa s te rm i nate d, the re is no c ogniz a b le e v ide nc e indic ating tha t TAPC O
e arne d this inc om e using JM FA’ s re c om m e ndations, produc ts, or se rvic e s. JM FA
c annot survive sum

m ary judgm e nt ba se d sole ly

on a “ be lie f” that is unc orroborate d by som e a dm issiblee vide nc e to support its c la im
. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did

3not e rr whe n it de te rm ine d tha t the re we re no tria

ble issue s of fa c t re ga

rding whe the r TAPC O bre a c he d its c ontra c t or wa s unjustly e nric he d. 1 2. The distric t c ourt e rre d in re je c t ing JM FA’ s m otion for re c onside ration a s untim e l y unde r Loc a l C ivil R

ule 7(h). Se e Allianc e of N onprofits for Ins., Risk Re te ntion Group v. K

i ppe r , 712 F.3d 1316, 1327 (9th C ir. 2013). Howe ve r, the
e rror wa s ha

rm le ss be c a

u se the distric t

c ourt re vie we d the m otions a s re quire d by Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 59(e ). W e “ re vie w de nia ls of R ule 59(e ) m otions for a b use of disc re tion.” Zimme rman v . C ity of Oak land, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th C ir. 2001). JM FA did not pre se nt ne w e v i de nc e tha t TAPC O wa s using its
se rvic e s, produc ts, or re c om m e ndations in support of its m otion for
re c o nside ra tion. 2 R athe r, it a rgue d tha t (1) the distric t c ourt im

p rope rly disre ga rde d the a ffida

vits file d in opposition to the m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt; (2) the distric t c ourt e rre d in not striking TAPC O’ s de c la rations in its surre

ply ; a nd (3) the distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e n t. The distric t c o urt de nie d the m otion for re c onside ra tion, finding tha t JM FA ha d fa ile d to show

1 In light of our holding, we ne e d not a ddre ss JM FA’ s a c c ounting a nd ba d fa ith c l a im s .

2 JM FA atta c he d a

two-pa ge c opy of TAPC O’ s we bsite to show tha t TAPC O c ontinue d to offe r ove rdra ft progra m s. B ut JM FA did not subm it e vide n c e that a

ny of the inform ation on this we bsite wa s ba se d on TAPC O using JM FA’ s se rvic e s, produc ts, or re c om

m e ndations. 4“ m anife st e rror” in the sum m ary judgm e nt orde r. In pa

rtic ula r, the distric t c ourt note d tha t the fa c t tha

t TAPC O ge ne rate d

re ve nue from

an ove rdra ft progra

m wa s not e nough, a

bse nt e vide nc e of a

c onne c tion be twe e n tha

t inc o m e and the a lle ge d
c ontinue d use of JM FA’ s ove rdra ft progra m s. Thus, the

distric t c ourt did not
a buse i ts disc re tion in deny ing the m otion. Se e Mc Dow e ll v . C

alde ron , 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th C ir. 1999) (e n ba nc ) (pe r c uriam ) (“ Am o tion for re c onside ration unde r R ule 59(e ) should not be

grante d , a

bse nt highly unusua l c irc um sta nc e s, unle ss the distric t c o urt is pre se nte d with ne w ly disc ove re d e vide nc e , c o m m itte d
c le ar e rror , or if the re is a n inte rve ning c h ange in the c ontrolling la w.” (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)); se e also Zimme rman , 255 F.3d a t 740. 3 AFFIRM E D.

3 In light of our holding, we ne e d not a d dre ss TAPC O’ s c ounte r c la im
. 5