Timothy Algaier v. Bank of America, N.A.
691 F. App'x 497
9th Cir.2017Background
- Timothy Algaier and Debra Eddy (plaintiffs) sued Bank of America in diversity court alleging state-law claims arising from an alleged loan modification and related communications.
- Plaintiffs asserted breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud based on alleged promises or credits associated with their loan.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; plaintiffs submitted evidence and untimely disclosures that defendants sought to strike.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Bank of America on all claims and struck certain plaintiff submissions as untimely; plaintiffs’ motions to strike some defendant declarations were denied.
- Plaintiffs appealed pro se to the Ninth Circuit, which reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and review of evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract — formation and breach | Plaintiffs: an agreement or credits were promised as part of a loan modification | Bank: no enforceable contract or credit obligation was formed; no breach | Affirmed — plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute that a contract re: credits was formed or breached |
| Promissory estoppel — enforceability under statute of frauds | Plaintiffs: oral promises should be enforced under promissory estoppel | Bank: alleged oral promise fails the statute of frauds writing requirement | Affirmed — plaintiffs did not show the oral promise satisfied statute of frauds |
| Fraud — reasonable reliance on misrepresentation | Plaintiffs: they reasonably relied on Bank’s representations | Bank: plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on any alleged misrepresentation | Affirmed — no genuine dispute of reasonable reliance |
| Evidentiary rulings — motions to strike declarations and submissions | Plaintiffs: some defendant declarations should be struck; their late disclosures were justified | Bank: defendant declarations were proper; plaintiffs’ untimely disclosures should be excluded | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion: defendant declarations had personal knowledge; plaintiffs’ late disclosures were neither substantially justified nor harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for de novo review on appeal)
- Lehrer v. State, Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 5 P.3d 722 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (elements of breach of contract under Washington law)
- Greaves v. Med. Imaging Sys., Inc., 879 P.2d 276 (Wash. 1994) (statute of frauds and promissory estoppel interaction)
- Elcon Const., Inc. v. E. Wash. Univ., 273 P.3d 965 (Wash. 2012) (elements of fraud under Washington law)
- Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters., Inc., 397 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for motions to strike evidence)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (issues not raised in opening brief are not considered on appeal)