Jamie Clark v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co
This text of 461 F. App'x 538 (Jamie Clark v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
The uncontested facts establish that plaintiff suffered no damages from defendant’s management of the Total Control Account Money Market Option (“TCA”). The district court thus properly granted summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs breach of contract claim. See Brown v. Kinross Gold U.S. A., Inc., 531 F.Supp.2d 1234, 1240 (D.Nev.2008) (quoting Saini v. Int’l Game Tech., 434 F.Supp.2d 913, 919-20 (D.Nev.2006)). The undisputed facts further show that plaintiffs status as a TCA holder did not create the sort of relationship necessary to establish a Nevada state-law claim for breach of duties arising from a special or confidential relationship. The district court was therefore correct to grant summary judgment on that claim as well. See Giles v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 881-82 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
461 F. App'x 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamie-clark-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-co-ca9-2011.