Case Information
*1
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Timothy Algaier and Debra Eddy appeal pro se from the district court’s
*2
summary judgment in their diversity action alleging state law claims related to an
alleged loan modification. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo.
Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles
,
The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim because plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a contract was formed regarding credits or whether Bank of America breached the loan agreement. See Lehrer v. State, Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs. , 5 P.3d 722, 727 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (setting forth elements of breach of contract claim under Washington law).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’
promissory estoppel claim because plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether the alleged oral promise satisfied the statute of frauds.
See Greaves v. Med. Imaging Sys., Inc.
,
The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ fraud
claim because plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether plaintiffs reasonably relied on a misrepresentation by Bank of America.
See Elcon Const., Inc. v. E. Wash. Univ.
,
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to
strike defendants’ declarations because the declarations were made with personal
knowledge.
See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) (requiring that a declaration be made on
personal knowledge);
see also Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. BalkinEnters., Inc.
,
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants’ motion
to strike plaintiffs’ submissions because the untimely disclosures were not
substantially justified or harmless.
See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (providing for
exclusion of evidence if a party fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)
unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless);
see also Hambleton
Bros. Lumber Co.
,
We reject as unsupported by the record plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the district court’s evidentiary findings.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief.
See Padgett v. Wright
,
AFFIRMED.
Notes
[*] 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).