Robert Valenzuela v. Adt Security Services, Inc.

Good Law
475 F. App'x 115
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 5, 201210-56455, 10-56517California762 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs-Appellants Roberto and Ruby Valenzuela and Pearl of the Orient, Inc. d/b/a Manila Fine Jewelers (collectively “Valenzuela”) appeal from the following district court orders: 1) the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee ADT Security Services, Inc. (“ADT”) on Valenzuela’s claim of gross negligence; 2) the decision to enforce a limited damages provision after granting summary judgment in favor of Valenzuela on a breach of contract claim; and 3) the refusal to award attorneys’ fees in favor of Valenzuela. ADT cross-appeals the district court’s refusal to award attorneys’ fees in its favor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s legal determinations. Balint v. Carson City, 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). We review the district court’s decision to award or deny attorneys’ fees for abuse of discretion. Drucker v. O’Brien’s Moving & Storage, Inc., 963 F.2d 1171, 1173 (9th Cir.1992).

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of ADT on Valenzuela’s gross negligence claim. Although ADT failed properly to install Valenzuela’s alarm system and failed to provide…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.