Fox

MEMORANDUM *

Bret Fox appeals the district court’s summary judgment, dismissing his claim for intentional and reckless misrepresentation against his former employer Citadel Communications Corporation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013 , 1019 (9th Cir.2004). Where there must be clear and convincing evidence, a genuine issue of material fact exists only if a jury applying that standard could reasonably find for the plaintiff. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 330 F.3d 1110, 1131-32 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 468 , 157 L.Ed.2d 373 (2003).

Fox was required to come forward with clear and convincing evidence: (1) that there was a false representation; (2) that it was made with the knowledge of, belief of, or reckless indifference to it being false; (3) that it was made intending that he would rely on it; (4) that he actually and justifiably relied on it; and (5) that he suffered damages as a direct consequence of this reliance. See Webb v. Clark, 274 Or. 387 , 546 P.2d 1078, 1080 (1976). This…