Brunelle
Brunelle v. Ge Capital Information Technology Solutions, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Renee Harris Brunelle (“Brunelle”) appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant Compu-com 1 on Brunelle’s claims for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), negligence, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. 2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Brunelle’s contract claim fails because the future employment position allegedly offered to her was at-will, and Brunelle has not shown sufficient cognizable damages in reliance on the offer of future employment. The cases that Brunelle cites are distinguishable because they involve plaintiffs who incurred significant costs, including quitting jobs and moving long distances, in reliance on an offer of employment. See Comeaux v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 915 F.2d 1264, 1270 (9th Cir.1990); Sheppard v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 218 Cal.App.3d 61 , 266 Cal.Rptr. 784, 785-86 (1990).
The district court properly granted summary judgment to Compucom on Bru- *383 nelle’s IIED and negligence claims because the claims are derived from a statement made by Ryan Ruwe (“Ruwe”) to Manpower regarding the undisputed…