United States v. Richard W. Johnson Ruth E. Johnson

ORDER

The appellee’s request for publication is granted. The memorandum disposition filed August 9, 1994 is redesignated as a per cu-riam opinion.

OPINION

Richard W. Johnson appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for the United States in the government’s action seeking specific performance of a purchase option contained in a lease agreement between Johnson and the government. Johnson contends the district court erred because the terms of the purchase option are ambiguous and the district court should have considered parol evidence regarding the ambiguity and related evidence of fraud. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. United States v. King Features Entertainment, Inc., 843 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir.1988). “Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant law.” Id.

Johnson contends the terms of the purchase option are ambiguous and, therefore, the district court should have considered par-ol evidence to resolve the ambiguity.…