BRUCE SINGMAN V. NBA PROPERTIES, INC., No. 14-55156 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 04 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE H. SINGMAN, No. 14-55156 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-05675-ABC-SH v. MEMORANDUM* NBA PROPERTIES, INC., Erroneously Sued As National Basketball Association Properties, Inc., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Bruce H. Singman, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims arising from attempts to negotiate an agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Singman’s intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim because Singman failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim, including “that the defendant’s conduct was wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of interference itself.” Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 63 P.3d 937, 950 (Cal. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (elements of a intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim in California); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 14-55156

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.