Morris

Morris v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc.

Good Law
289 F. App'x 998
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 20, 2008No. 06-35624California2,035 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant James B. Moms, Jr. appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee Cadence Design System’s (“Cadence”) motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant Morris’s claims because Morris lacked standing to assert those claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Morris’s claims arise out of his contention that Cadence breached certain provisions of a Product Purchase, Manufacturing and Distribution Agreement *1000 (“Cadence-Simutech Agreement” or “Agreement”), entered into by Cadence and Simutech on November 5, 1999. It is important to note that Morris is not a named party to the Agreement. It is undisputed that Cadence did not consent to any assignment or transfer to Morris of Cadence’s rights under the Agreement. Instead, Morris’s case is based on the theory that a non-party entity, RaveSim, assigned to Morris “by operation of law” the right to sue Cadence.

We review the factual and procedural history. In 1995, Morris founded and became the chief executive officer (“CEO”) of Simutech, a Beaverton, Oregon-based high technology company. In November 1999, Simutech entered into the Cadence-Simutech Agreement to co-develop and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.