Crossroads Partners v. Utah Crossing, Ltd., and Hale, Lane, Peek, Dennison and Howard

86 F.3d 1161 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. CROSSROADS PARTNERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UTAH CROSSING, LTD., Defendant, and Hale, Lane, Peek, Dennison and Howard, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-16304. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 10, 1996. Decided May 17, 1996. As Corrected June 20, 1996. 1 Before: BROWNING and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and MERHIGE, * Senior District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** I. 3 The district court properly granted summary judgment on Crossroads's negligence claim. Assuming Nevada would recognize a duty to disclose in the circumstances identified in Goodman v. Kennedy, 556 P.2d 737 (Cal.1976), Hale Lane owed no such duty to Crossroads in this case. Hale Lane did not intend to affect or benefit Crossroads by documenting the loans or drafting the settlement agreement--as in Goodman, Crossroads's only relationship to the transaction was as a party "with whom the defendant's clients might negotiate a…