Balestra-Leigh v. Balestra, 030712 FED9, 10-17621

Docket Nº:10-17621
Party Name:DEBRA M. BALESTRA-LEIGH; STEPHEN M. BALESTRA, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JESSICA K. BALESTRA, FKA Jessica K. Eslava-Barbieri, Defendant-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 07, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

DEBRA M. BALESTRA-LEIGH; STEPHEN M. BALESTRA, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

JESSICA K. BALESTRA, FKA Jessica K. Eslava-Barbieri, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-17621

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 7, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted February 21, 2012 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada No. 3:09-cv-00551-ECR-RAM, Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Debra M. Balestra-Leigh and Stephen M. Balestra appeal from the district court's judgment in their diversity action against Jessica K. Balestra alleging breach of contract and various torts related to their deceased father's estate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because appellants failed to allege facts sufficient to state any claim for relief. See Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc., 956 P.2d 1382, 1387 (Nev. 1998) (explaining elements of negligent misrepresentation claim and that the claim applies only within a "business or commercial transaction"); Wichinsky v. Mosa, 847 P.2d 727, 729-30 (Nev. 1993) (elements of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim); Bernard v. Rockhill Dev. Co., 734 P.2d 1238, 1240 (Nev. 1987) ("A breach of contract may be said to be a material failure of performance of a duty arising under or imposed by agreement."). Moreover, appellants point to no Nevada law recognizing their claims for tortious interference with expectancy of inheritance or promissory/tortious estoppel.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to entertain...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP