Theede v. Jacobs, Anderson, Potter, & Chaplin LLP, 671 F. App'x 978

Robert L. Theede, proceeding pro se, sued after eviction from a commercial rental unit, asserting federal and state claims including a § 1983 unlawful search/seizure claim, breach of contract, fraud/misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims and denied Theede’s Rule 60(b) reconsideration motion.
Theede appealed the summary judgment and denial of reconsideration to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and the denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion.
The panel affirmed, concluding Theede failed to raise genuine disputes of material fact as to constitutional/state-action elements, contract breach, fraudulent intent, and extreme/outrageous conduct.
Theede’s post-appeal jury-trial motions were denied; the disposition is unpublished and decided without oral argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants violated § 1983 by unlawfully searching/seizing property or acting under color of state law	Theede argued his constitutional/statutory rights were violated during eviction and property handling	Defendants argued no constitutional violation occurred and they did not act under color of state law	Summary judgment for defendants: Theede failed to raise a genuine dispute on violation or state action
Whether defendants breached the lease agreement	Theede contended defendants breached lease terms in eviction/possession actions	Defendants maintained they did not breach the lease	Summary judgment for defendants: no triable issue of breach raised
Whether defendants committed fraud/misrepresentation	Theede alleged misrepresentations made with intent to defraud/deceive him	Defendants denied making fraudulent misrepresentations or intent	Summary judgment for defendants: no genuine dispute of misrepresentation/intent
Whether defendants’ conduct supports intentional infliction of emotional distress	Theede argued defendants’ actions regarding his property were extreme/outrageous causing severe distress	Defendants argued conduct was not extreme/outrageous as required under California law	Summary judgment for defendants: Theede failed to show extreme and outrageous conduct

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (establishing § 1983 requires action under color of state law)
Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423 (private-party state-action analysis requires significant state involvement)
Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (standard of de novo review on appeal)
Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943 (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported basis)
Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 201 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390 (elements of breach of contract under California law)
Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp., 102 P.3d 268 (elements of fraud/misrepresentation under California law)
Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963 (elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress in California)
Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254 (standard and grounds for Rule 60(b) reconsideration)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (appellate courts need not consider issues not presented to district court)