eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-12

Jesus Moran v. Thomas Higgins ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS MANUEL MORAN,                             No. 19-17503
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00613-JGZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THOMAS E. HIGGINS, Attorney,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before:      WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Manuel Moran appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his diversity action alleging state law claims against his former
attorney. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo the
district court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. JL Beverage
*
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).
Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co.,
    828 F.3d 1098
    , 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because
Moran failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s
conduct was the proximate cause of any injury. See Glaze v. Larsen,
    83 P.3d 26
    ,
29 (Ariz. 2004) (en banc) (elements of a legal malpractice claim); KB Home
Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co.,
    340 P.3d 405
    , 412 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014)
(elements of a fraud claim); Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA,
    48 P.3d 485
    , 491 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (elements of an unjust enrichment claim); Baines v.
Superior Court,
    688 P.2d 1037
    , 1041 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (elements of a claim
under Arizona’s racketeering statute); see also
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2314.04
    (A)
(permitting private cause of action for racketeering claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to deny defendant’s
cross motion for summary judgment on the basis of defendant’s failure to adhere to
the local rules. See Bias v. Moynihan,
    508 F.3d 1212
    , 1223 (9th Cir. 2007)
(standard of review for district court’s compliance with its local rules).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2                                      19-17503