Bruce Harrigan v. Lennar Corporation
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Bruce David Harrigan appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims against his former employer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Harrigan’s claims concerning nonpayment of bonuses because he failed to allege facts suggesting that defendant was contractually bound to pay him. See First Comm. Mort. Co. v. Reece, 89 Cal.App.4th 731 , 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 , 33 (2001) (the first element to a breach of contract claim is the existence of valid contract); see also Rennich v. O.P.T.I.O.N. Care, 77 F.3d 309 , 316 (9th Cir.1996) (there is no contract where a party explicitly chooses not to bind itself).
The district court properly dismissed Harrigan’s claim concerning attorney’s fees because he failed to allege facts suggesting that the defendant was obligated to reimburse him for such fees. See Cal. Civ.Proc.Code § 1021 (each party is to bear his own attorney’s fees unless a statute or the agreement of the parties provides otherwise).