Brickman

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant June Brickman appeals the orders of the district court granting sum *283 mary judgment against her and awarding attorneys fees to appellees Geoffrey and Cynthia Scheitlin as the prevailing parties. Brickman brought this diversity case alleging fraud, breach of contract, and other state-law causes of action in connection with her purchase of a home from the Scheitlins. In our view, disputed issues of fact precluded the granting of summary judgment. We reverse the district court and remand for trial, and we reverse the order granting attorneys’ fees.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Lawson v. Washington, 296 F.3d 799, 803 (9th Cir.2002).

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recount them in detail. Under California law, a seller of real estate has a duty to disclose any known facts that will materially affect the “value or desirability of the property” if the seller “also knows that such facts are not known to, or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer.” Lingsch v. Savage, 213 Cal.App.2d 729, 735 , 29 Cal.Rptr. 201…

Dissenting.

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge.

The Plaintiffs purchased the residential property in question “ ‘AS IS,’ in its present physical condition.” In addition to the specific disclosures made by the sellers in their disclosure statement, the parties expressly agreed that “inspection reports completed pursuant to the contract of sale” would “satisfy [sellers’] disclosure obligations.”

Plaintiffs subsequently commissioned a comprehensive inspection encompassing “the grounds, including evidence of soil erosion and surface drainage patterns.”

Ms. Brickman acknowledged that the inspector pointed out drainage problems at the exterior of the home, and recommended consulting a “qualified plumbing contractor” to determine the “need to re- *284 pipe the entire house.” With that knowledge, it cannot be said that the sewer and drainage problems referenced by the majority were “not known to, or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer.” Alexander v. McKnight, 7 Cal.App.4th 973, 977 , 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 458 (1992) (citation omitted).

The majority’s analysis in this case unfortunately fosters a “see no evil” approach on the part of the buyer. Accordingly, I…