Andrews v. Rogich
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
Kenn Andrews appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing under *920Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) his contract action against Rogich and Ranger Building Corporation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.
Because the written agreement between Andrews and Rogich contained a clear intent not to be bound, the district court did not err in dismissing Andrews’ action because no contract was formed. See Tropicana Hotel Corp. v. Speer, 101 Nev. 40, 692…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Johnson v. KnowlesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Tropicana Hotel Corp. v. SpeerNevada Supreme Court · 1985