Russell Childs v. Microsoft Corporation

Good Law
489 F. App'x 224
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 28, 201212-35045California551 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Russell Childs appeals the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of claims against Microsoft Corporation for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. He also appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Microsoft on his state law tort claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. We affirm the district court’s rulings and decline to consider two arguments Childs raises for the first time on appeal: that Microsoft violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , and that the crime-fraud exception applies to a Microsoft email the district court deemed privileged.

1. Childs failed to state a claim for breach of the February 2009 employment contract because he did not cite a provision of that contract that Microsoft violated. To the extent that Childs is attempting to assert that Microsoft Canada may have breached an earlier agreement it made with Childs in 2008, such a claim is not properly before this court. Childs did not plead breach of the 2008 contract in his complaint, nor did he seek at any point to amend his complaint to include such a claim. Childs also failed to state a claim for promissory estoppel because he did not plead facts plausibly showing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.