Court Opinion

ID: 9555056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 17:01:00.700987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:04.426521
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             AUG 10 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALAA AREF AL-JELAIHAWI,                          No.    22-35215

              Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01855-DWC

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE
COMPANIES,

              Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                  David W. Christel, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 10, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

      *
        This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Plaintiff Alaa Al-Jelaihawi appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in favor of Defendant United Casualty Corporation1 and denial of his

motion for summary judgment.2 We review the decisions regarding summary

judgment de novo. Brunozzi v. Cable Commc’ns, Inc., 851 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir.

2017). We affirm.

      The district court did not err in entering summary judgment for Defendant

on Al-Jelaihawi’s claims. Summary judgment was proper on the breach of

contract claim because Al-Jelaihawi failed to identify any provision of a contract

that Defendant allegedly breached3 or to provide any evidence supporting the

elements for breach of contract, let alone to show a genuine dispute of material fact

as to any of the elements.4

      Summary judgment was proper on the negligence claim because Al-

Jelaihawi failed to identify any specific duty Defendant had to him, how Defendant

      1
       Al-Jelaihawi listed “Progressive Insurance Companies” as the defendant,
but United Financial Casualty Corporation is the proper party.
      2
        See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Washington v. Kijakazi, 72 F.4th 1029, 1037
(9th Cir. 2023).
      3
        See Elliott Bay Seafoods, Inc. v. Port of Seattle, 98 P.3d 491, 494 (Wash.
Ct. App. 2004); see also Singh v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 925 F.3d 1053, 1072 (9th
Cir. 2019).
      4
       See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552,
91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986).

                                          2                                    22-35215
breached that duty, or any evidence to support the claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c)(1)(A); Wellman & Zuck, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 285 P.3d 892, 900

(Wash. Ct. App. 2012); see also Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S. Ct. at 2552;

Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1058 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Summary judgment was proper on the bad faith claim because Defendant

provided evidence of the reasons for Al-Jelaihawi’s premium rate increases and

contract cancellation, and Al-Jelaihawi did not provide any evidence to the

contrary. See Smith v. Safeco Ins. Co., 78 P.3d 1274, 1276–77 (Wash. 2003) (en

banc); see also Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S. Ct. at 2552; Gordon, 575

F.3d at 1058.

      Because neither party requested oral argument, the district court did not

abuse its discretion by declining to hear oral argument. See Local Rules W.D.

Wash. LCR 7(b)(4); Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer Cnty. Inc., 171 F.3d 1197,

1200–01 (9th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247,

1261–62 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

      We do not consider arguments or evidence raised for the first time on appeal

or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief.

See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

      AFFIRMED. All pending motions are denied.

                                           3                                    22-35215