Elliot Klein v. Dominos Pizza Inc.

66 F.3d 335 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Elliot KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOMINOS PIZZA INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-55471. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 11, 1995. Decided Sept. 1, 1995. Before: THOMPSON, LEAVY AND TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Elliot Klein appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Domino's Pizza Inc. (DPI) in a diversity action alleging that DPI improperly refused to grant him a franchise. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 * Klein argues that Domino's breached an alleged oral contract with Klein by refusing to grant him a franchise. Assuming arguendo that an oral contract between Domino's and Klein existed, we conclude that such a contract is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds was created so that no "contract" would be enforced that was in fact never made. The California Civil Code…