Ezell

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Ezell appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Rick Burton in the parties’ dispute over Ezell’s investment in an Arizona land development venture in which Burton was involved. Ezell alleged that Burton violated federal securities laws and Nevada state law 1 by misleading Ezell about the potential for success of the development.

All of the alleged misleading statements and omissions occurred after Ezell had exercised an option to sell his interest in the development to Burton for a fixed price. The district court concluded that all of Ezell’s claims failed because his exercise of the option was irrevocable; therefore, that he could not have been prejudiced by any subsequent misrepresentations by Burton. We agree and affirm.

Although there appears to be no Nevada case expressly stating that the exercise of an option cannot be revoked, irrevocability follows from basic principles of contract law. Under Nevada law, the decision to exercise an option creates a bilateral contract between the optionor and the optionee. Maloff v. B-Neva, Inc., 85 Nev. 471 , 456 P.2d 438, 439 (1969); McCall v.…