Opinion
No. 05-15866.
Argued and Submitted March 13, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Philip Keith, Esq., Amen Keith, San Francisco, CA, Thomas I. Saberi, Law Offices of William H. Paynter, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Helen L. Duncan, Attorney, Dinh Ha, Esq., Fulbright Jaworski, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-02413-MHP.
Before: BRUNETTI, W. FLETCHER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
As the district court correctly determined, Plaintiff's declaration does not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant promised to sell the service station within a particular time frame. Because Defendant performed as allegedly promised when it eventually sold the station to Plaintiff, the promissory fraud claim fails as a matter of law.