Quan

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Steve Quan appeals from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his claims for fraud, declaratory relief, and invasion of privacy.

1. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Decker v. Advantage Fund Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir.2004). Insofar as the complaint alleges that Defendant’s agents lied when they told Plaintiff that he had to fill out a medical form, the claim for fraud fails because— as the complaint elsewhere admits — Defendant in fact did require Plaintiff to fill out the form. That is, Defendant’s alleged statement was not false. Insofar as the complaint alleges that Defendant said the hiring process was lawful, Defendant’s statement was an opinion or misrepresentation of law, which cannot support a claim of fraud. Haviland v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 172 Cal. 601 , 158 P. 328, *670 331 (1916); Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir.2004).

2. The district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim for declaratory relief because there is no need for declaratory relief in the circumstances. See Greater L.A. Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812…