Capstar

MEMORANDUM

John R. Quain appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his di versity action alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, see Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.2011), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to amend, see Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Quain’s breach of contract claim because Quain failed sufficiently to allege that he was an intended third-party beneficiary of the Consent Decree between the Federal Communications Commission and Clear Channel. See United States v. FMC Corp., 531 F.3d 813, 820-21 (9th Cir.2008) (when the government is party to a consent decree, there is a presumption that members of the public are not intended beneficiaries); see also Norton v. First Fed. Sav., 128 Ariz. 176 , 624 P.2d 854, 856 (1981) (for a person to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract, an intention for that person to benefit must be indicated in the contract…