J. Schaefer v. Robbins & Keehn, Apc

MEMORANDUM

In this diversity action, J. Michael Schaefer appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for Robbins & Keehn, APC, on his fraud claim, and on Robbins & Keehn’s counterclaim for unpaid legal fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Monism v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896 , 900 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Schaefer’s fraud claim because Schaefer failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to the elements of fraudulent concealment. See Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144 , 1156 n. 3 (9th Cir.2000) (setting forth requirements for fraudulent concealment under California law).

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Robbins & Keehn on its account stated claim because Robbins & Keehn showed that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to any element of this claim, and Schaefer failed to create a triable dispute as to any defense to the claim. See Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v. La. Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538 , 1542-43 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (discussing account stated claim under California law); Armendariz v.…