Semaan

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant Jerry David Semaan (“Semaan”) won a $644,049.29 jackpot on a progressive slot machine operated by Defendant-Appellee IGT (“IGT”). The parties dispute how much IGT owes Semaan as a result of this jackpot win. Applying California law, the district court issued summary judgment for IGT on Semaan’s breach of contract and fraud claims. We affirm.

As a preliminary matter, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the exhibits that were submitted with IGT’s motion for summary judgment. IGT’s initial failure to verify the exhibits was cured. Even if it had not been, “reversal is only appropriate if the error was prejudicial.” Sea-Land, Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Intern., 285 F.3d 808 , 813 (9th Cir.2002). In this case, Semaan’s deposition authenticates the exhibits and he does not argue that they are not authentic or admissible. See Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d 1542, 1551 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that the district court’s error in considering an unauthenticated document was harmless because it was not per se inadmissible and could be authenticated). *796 Consideration of the exhibits does not constitute prejudicial error.

We…