JESUS MORAN V. THOMAS HIGGINS, No. 19-17503 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESUS MANUEL MORAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-17503 D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00613-JGZ MEMORANDUM* THOMAS E. HIGGINS, Attorney, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Jesus Manuel Moran appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging state law claims against his former attorney. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. JL Beverage * 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). Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because Moran failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of any injury. See Glaze v. Larsen, 83 P.3d 26, 29 (Ariz. 2004) (en banc) (elements of a legal malpractice claim); KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 340 P.3d 405, 412 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014) (elements of a fraud claim); Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Bank One, Ariz., NA, 48 P.3d 485, 491 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (elements of an unjust enrichment claim); Baines v. Superior Court, 688 P.2d 1037, 1041 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (elements of a claim under Arizona’s racketeering statute); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2314.04(A) (permitting private cause of action for racketeering claim). The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to deny defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on the basis of defendant’s failure to adhere to the local rules. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for district court’s compliance with its local rules). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 19-17503

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.