Bruce Harrigan v. Lennar Corporation ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE DAVID HARRIGAN, No. 10-55024
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00446-CJC-
MLG
v.
LENNAR CORPORATION, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly dismissed Harrigan’s claims concerning non-
payment 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.
Appellee’s pending motion is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-55024