Knutson
Knutson v. Providian Financial Corp.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Albert Knutson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in his action for breach of contract against Providian National Bank. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(c), McGann v. Ernst & Young, 102 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Knutson’s claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because no contract existed containing Knutson’s inserted terms. See Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust, 165 Ariz. 469 , 799 P.2d 810, 814 (1990) (parties to a contract must understand and share a mutual assent that is based on objective evidence, not on the hidden intent of the parties); Johnson Int’l, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 466 , 967 P.2d 607, 615 (1998) (to state a claim under the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a valid contract must exist).
The district court properly dismissed Knutson’s fraud claim because he failed to adequately allege that any of the representations made by any defendants were false, or that the defendants knew of their falsity.…