Vinion

MEMORANDUM *

Patrick D. Vinion, Richelle Vinion, Clayton H. Riddle, and Angela Riddle (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal two decisions by the distinct court: (1) dismissal of their contract claims against Amgen Inc. and Immunex Corporation (collectively, “Companies”); and (2) summary judgment in favor of the Companies on a variety of state law tort claims. Although we have sympathy for Appellants, the law is not on them side. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM both of the district court’s decisions.

*584 We affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss Appellants’ contract claim because it appears beyond doubt that Appellants could prove no set of facts that would entitle them to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). The written agreements did not contain a promise that the Companies would provide the study drug for free indefinitely once the study ended. The district court properly considered these documents because the complaint alleged them contents and no party questioned their authenticity. See Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453-54 (9th Cir. 1994). The oral contract claim could not succeed because the parol…

dissenting:

I agree with the majority holding that Appellants’ contract claims were properly dismissed by the district court because the written Study Agreement between Dr. Whitehouse and Appellee Immunex Corp., now Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”), does not require that Amgen provide the study drug free of charge to Appellants after the limited duration of the clinical trial, and because Appellants’ oral contract claims are barred. It is also clear that Dr. White-house was not Amgen’s actual agent.

However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that “no action or inaction” by Amgen “would have led the Appellants to a reasonable belief that Dr. Whitehouse was [Amgen’s] agent.” Maj. Op. at 584. It is possible that based on the record a jury could find that Amgen “intentionally or by want of ordinary care causefd]” Appellants to believe Dr. Whitehouse to be Amgen’s implied agent. See Mont.Code Ann. § 28-10-103(1). Because it remains an open question, for a jury to decide, whether Dr. Whitehouse had implied authority to commit Amgen to provide Appellants the study drug after the limited duration of the clinical trial, summary judgment denying Appellants’ state law tort claims was…