RICKEY REED V. NFL, No. 15-56988 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICKEY B. REED, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-56988 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01796-DMGAGR v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL unincorporated tax exempt not for profit association; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Rickey B. Reed appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of implied-in-fact contract and other state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Reed’s implied-in-fact contract claim because Reed failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants “voluntarily accepted [Reed’s proposal] knowing the conditions on which it was tendered and the reasonable value of the work.” Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the elements of a claim under Desny v. Wilder, 299 P.2d 257 (Cal. 1956), for a breach of implied-in-fact contract when an idea is furnished by one party to another). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Reed’s motions seeking to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 21-23) are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-56988

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.