Opinion ID: 614396
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: PFG’s Alleged Fraud

Text: Throughout this litigation, Moriarty premised Count 5 against PFG on an unsuccessful theory of respondeat superior liability. In granting a pre-discovery motion to dismiss, the district court held that Count 5 “fails to state a claim against PFG to the extent the claim depends on an agency relationship between PFG and Equisearch.” The court allowed the claim to proceed, however, “to the extent the claim is asserted directly against PFG.” Despite this ruling, at summary judgment Moriarty continued to ground his fraud claim against PFG solely “on an alleged agency relationship between PFG and Equisearch,” prompting the district court to grant PFG summary judgment without -8- No. 10-3447 Moriarty v. Equisearch Servs., Inc. addressing the merits of Moriarty’s agency argument. And in challenging the grant of summary judgment here, he resurrects his argument that Equisearch acted as PFG’s agent, making PFG liable for Equisearch’s fraud. Procedural deficiencies in Moriarty’s case preclude our review of the respondeat-superiorliability issue. The district court did not rule at summary judgment that Moriarty failed to establish an agency relationship between PFG and Equisearch; rather, it held only that it would not revisit its previous decision to partially dismiss Count 5 for Moriarty’s failure to allege that relationship. The district court, having dismissed the pertinent portions of Count 5, properly declined to rule on the agency issue at summary judgment. In addition, Moriarty failed to appeal the dismissal order as would have been necessary to invoke our review of respondeat superior liability for fraud. We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment to PFG on Count 5.