Narrative Opinion Summary
The district court found that the Plaintiff's declaration did not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Defendant had promised to sell the service station by a specific deadline. The Defendant fulfilled their obligation by selling the station to the Plaintiff, which led to the conclusion that the promissory fraud claim was legally insufficient. The court's decision is affirmed, with a note that this ruling is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision in this case is noted as non-precedential, except as provided under specific court rules.
Reasoning: The court's decision is affirmed, with a note that this ruling is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Promissory Fraud Claimsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that the promissory fraud claim was legally insufficient due to the Defendant fulfilling their contractual obligation.
Reasoning: The Defendant fulfilled their obligation by selling the station to the Plaintiff, which led to the conclusion that the promissory fraud claim was legally insufficient.
Summary Judgment and Genuine Issue of Material Factsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the Plaintiff's declaration failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Defendant's alleged promise, which justified granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.
Reasoning: The district court found that the Plaintiff's declaration did not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Defendant had promised to sell the service station by a specific deadline.