DAVID CURTIS V. WEINGARTEN NOSTAT INCORPORATED, No. 17-17054 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID CURTIS, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-17054 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02584-SRB v. MEMORANDUM* WEINGARTEN NOSTAT INCORPORATED, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. David Curtis appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging breach of an agreement under state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. * 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). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Curtis’s breach of contract claim premised on an oral agreement because it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-550 (four-year general statute of limitations for any action other than for recovery of real property for which no limitation is otherwise prescribed); Hawkinson Tire Co. v. Paul E. Hawkinson Co., 476 P.2d 864, 865 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970) (the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the alleged breach). Contrary to Curtis’s contention, the district court properly concluded that the breach alleged by Curtis did not arise from the parties’ written lease agreement. See Long v. Buckley, 629 P.2d 557, 562 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981) (“For the purpose of application of the six year period of limitations, the act which is alleged to give rise to the breach must bear some connection to the writing itself.”). AFFIRMED. 2 17-17054

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.