Goodinv.Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitMar 8, 2010
370 Fed. Appx. 789 (9th Cir. 2010)

Cases citing this document

How cited

1 Citing case

No. 08-17265.

Submitted February 16, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed March 8, 2010.

Richard B. Goodin, Jacksonville, FL, pro se.

Carol A. Eblen, Esquire, Regan M. Iwao, Goodsill Anderson Quinn Stifel, Keith K. Hiraoka, Roeca, Louie Hiraoka, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.

Cynthia Linet, Kea'Au, HI, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, David Alan Ezra, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00074-DAE-BMK.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Richard B. Goodin appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment and dismissal orders in this diversity action asserting claims of breach of a title insurance contract and of legal malpractice arising out of a real property dispute. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Fanucchi Limi Farms v. United Agri Prod., 414 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment); Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper on Goodin's claims against his former attorneys because Goodin failed to raise a triable issue as to whether these defendants breached any legal duty they had to him. See Blair v. Ing, 95 Hawaii 247, 21 P.3d 452, 464 (2001) (explaining standard for establishing attorney malpractice).

Because Goodin failed to argue the issue, we do not consider the propriety of the district court's dismissal of his breach of contract claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues raised in pro se litigant's brief but not supported by argument deemed abandoned).

Goodin's remaining contentions lack merit.