Case Name: Rickey B. REED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL unincorporated tax exempt not for profit association; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-20
Citations: 683 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 15-56988
Parties: Rickey B. REED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL unincorporated tax exempt not for profit association; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
Rickey B. REED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL unincorporated tax exempt not for profit association; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-56988
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 20, 2017
Rickey B. Reed, Pro Se
Lauren Schweitzer, Attorney, Diana M. Torres, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, Defendants-Appellees
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rickey B. Reed appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of implied-in-fact contract and other state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Reed's implied-in-fact contract claim because Reed failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants "voluntarily accepted [Reed's proposal] knowing the conditions on which it was tendered and the reasonable value of the work." Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the elements of a claim under Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal.2d 715, 299 P.2d 257 (1956), for a breach of implied-in-fact contract when an idea is furnished by one party to another).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Reed's motions seeking to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 21-23) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.