Unpublished Disposition, 931 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Thomas L. Strahl appeals a summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee Machine Technology, Inc. ("MTI"). Strahl is the developer of an "Advanced Sputter Deposition System." In April 1985, he entered into an Invention Agreement with MTI pursuant to which MTI would provide funds to develop and market his invention in return for Strahl's receipt of a share of the invention's profits. Strahl now contends that he was fraudulently induced to enter into that agreement. We affirm the district's court's decision.

It appears from the record that Strahl invested considerable time and effort into developing the Advanced Sputter Deposition System. It also appears that he did not receive the financial compensation from MTI that he expected to receive pursuant to the contract that he entered with MTI. However, rather than citing probative evidence to support his claim that he was fraudulently induced to execute an Invention Agreement, Strahl merely asserts that he "met [his] burden of proof ... by setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Appellant's Opening Brief at 10. At argument, and in his reply brief, Strahl's counsel claimed essentially that the declaration of Arthur Clark establishes that formula designed to provide profits for Strahl can never deliver on its promise. The declaration in question does not so establish. Clark merely asserts that it is "highly unlikely" that it will result in money being paid to Strahl. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to suggest that MTI applied improper accounting techniques during the relevant time period. There is thus no genuine issue of material fact as to any relevant issue.

Strahl's other claims regarding the district court's findings of facts and weighing of the evidence are frivolous and are irrelevant because we review a summary judgment de novo. See State of Idaho v. Hodel, 814 F.2d 1288, 1292 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 854 (1987). Because Strahl's claims are meritless, we grant MTI attorney's fees and single costs. See Fed. R. App. P. 38 (allowing award of "just damages and single or double costs"); International Union of Bricklayers v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985).

AFFIRMED.