Harrigan v. Lennar Corp., 032811 FED9, 10-55024
|Party Name:||BRUCE DAVID HARRIGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LENNAR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: FARRIS, O'SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 28, 2011|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted March 8, 2011[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00446-CJC-MLG
Bruce David Harrigan appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims against his former employer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Harrigan's claims concerning nonpayment of bonuses because he failed to allege facts suggesting that defendant was contractually bound to pay him. See First Comm. Mort. Co. v. Reece, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 33 (Ct. App. 2001) (the first element to a breach of contract claim is the existence of valid contract); see also Rennick v. O.P.T.I.O.N. Care, 77 F.3d 309, 316 (9th Cir. 1996) (there is no contract where a party explicitly chooses not to bind itself).
The district court properly dismissed Harrigan's claim concerning attorney's fees because he failed to allege facts suggesting that the defendant was obligated to reimburse him for such fees. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1021 (each party is to bear his own attorney's fees unless a statute or the agreement of the parties provides otherwise).
Harrigan's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP