Jaco Van Maanen v. University of Nations, Inc. , 542 F. App'x 581 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACO VAN MAANEN, No. 12-15515
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00493-AWI-JLT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNIVERSITY OF THE NATIONS, INC.,
DBA YWAM-University of the Nations
and DOES, 1-10,
Defendants - Appellees,
And
YOUTH WITH A MISSION
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DBA YWAM-
Office of The Founders and YOUTH
WITH A MISSION-BISHOP,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 9, 2013
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before: D.W. NELSON, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jaco van Maanen appeals the district court’s decision granting summary
judgment in favor of the University of the Nations (University) on van Maanen’s
claim of ostensible agency under California law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The evidence in the record does not establish any genuine dispute of
material fact suggesting that van Maanen relied on a belief that Youth With a
Mission-Bishop (YWAM-Bishop) was the agent of the University when he decided
to enroll in the SOAR course. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2300; Associated Creditors’
Agency v. Davis, 13 Cal. 3d 374, 399 (1975). Van Maanen testified that he relied
on the inclusion of the YWAM-Bishop SOAR course as part of the University
course catalog because it informed him that the course was part of the YWAM
movement and complied with YWAM’s values. But Van Maanen did not identify
any other reason why the inclusion of the SOAR course in the University was
important to him. Cf. J.L. v. Children’s Institute, Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 388,
403–04 (2009). Accordingly, there is no evidence that in making his decision to
enroll in the SOAR course van Maanen relied on the ability of the University to
exercise control over YWAM-Bishop. Cf. Kaplan v. Coldwell Banker Residential
2
Affiliates, Inc., 59 Cal. App. 4th 741, 744–48 (1997); Beck v. Arthur Murray, Inc.,
245 Cal. App. 2d 976, 977–78 (1966).
AFFIRMED.
3