Chin v. Ram Paging Hawaii

103 F.3d 137 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Stanley CHIN, an individual; Stanley Chin, dba Electronic Ventures, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RAM PAGING HAWAII, a Hawaii Corporation; Ram/bse Paging Co., L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; Mobilecomm of the Northeast, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-16093. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 8, 1996. * Decided Dec. 06, 1996. Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and ALARCN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Chin appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Ram Paging Hawaii (Ram). The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. 3 We review a summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court under Rule 56(c). Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1996). Summary judgment is appropriate if there are…