Case Name: Jamie CLARK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-07
Citations: 461 F. App'x 538
Docket Number: No. 10-17071
Parties: Jamie CLARK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FARRIS, Circuit Judge, and GETTLEMAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 461
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
Jamie CLARK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-17071.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 17, 2011.
Filed Dec. 7, 2011.
Matthew L. Sharp, Esquire, Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd., Curtis Brent Coulter, Esquire, Law Offices of Curtis B. Coulter, P.C., Reno, NV, Ronald Parry, Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks PSC, Coving-ton, KY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Albert F. Pagni, Esquire, Molly Malone Rezac, Jones Vargas, Reno, NV, Phillip Edward Stano, Esquire, Steuart Hill Thomsen, Srikanth Vadakapurapu, Esquire, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FARRIS, Circuit Judge, and GETTLEMAN, District Judge.
The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The uncontested facts establish that plaintiff suffered no damages from defendant's management of the Total Control Account Money Market Option ("TCA"). The district court thus properly granted summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs breach of contract claim. See Brown v. Kinross Gold U.S. A., Inc., 531 F.Supp.2d 1234, 1240 (D.Nev.2008) (quoting Saini v. Int'l Game Tech., 434 F.Supp.2d 913, 919-20 (D.Nev.2006)). The undisputed facts further show that plaintiffs status as a TCA holder did not create the sort of relationship necessary to establish a Nevada state-law claim for breach of duties arising from a special or confidential relationship. The district court was therefore correct to grant summary judgment on that claim as well. See Giles v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 881-82 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.