Pate

MEMORANDUM *

Robert Pate appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Berkeley (USA) Holding, Limited and Berkeley International Capital Corporation (collectively, “Berkeley”). The district court ruled that Berkeley did not intentionally or negligently misrepresent that they would assume liability for Pate’s shipments of lumber to Catalina Furniture Company, Inc., *876 and that Catalina was not Berkeley’s actual agent. We affirm.

Meticulously analyzing each of the statements Pate alleged were misrepresentations, the district court correctly held that Pate’s misrepresentation claims fail because he did not adduce evidence sufficient to overcome summary judgment that any of the statements are material representations of fact upon which Berkeley intended Pate to rely, and upon which Pate justifiably relied. See Small v. Fritz Cos., 30 Cal.4th 167 , 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 490, 494 , 65 P.3d 1255 (2003). Other than Beechwood’s and Galle’s general statements that Catalina was profitable, none of the alleged statements involve assertions of past or existing fact. See S.F. Design Ctr. Assocs. v. Portman Cos., 41 Cal.App.4th 29 , 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 716 , 724 (Ct.App.1995) (“actionable…