FILED
MAR 20 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR T. NUMRICH, No. 13-35405
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01594-HU
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UWEMEDIMOH WAYNE NTEKPERE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Edgar T. Numrich appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action alleging state law violations. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d
1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Numrich’s claims for negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress because
he failed to allege a relationship with defendant that created a heightened duty of
care. See Onita Pac. Corp. v. Trs. of Bronson, 843 P.2d 890, 896 (Or. 1992)
(negligence claims for economic loss must be “predicated on some duty of the
negligent actor to the injured party beyond the common law duty to exercise
reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm”); Paul v. Providence Health
Sys.-Oregon, 240 P.3d 1110, 1119 (Or. Ct. App. 2010), aff’d on other grounds,
273 P.3d 106 (Or. 2012) (to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress
without alleging physical injury, a plaintiff must identify a heightened duty of
care).
The district court properly dismissed Numrich’s claim for negligent
interference with economic expectation because no such cause of action exists
under Oregon law. See Ramirez v. Selles, 784 P.2d 433, 436 (Or. 1989)
(“Negligent injury to one person that harms another’s contract or other economic
relationship is not a tort, at least not unless some duty of defendant outside
negligence law itself protects the injured interest of the plaintiff against negligent
2 13-35405
invasion.”). To the extent Numrich was attempting to bring a claim for intentional
interference with economic relations, the district court properly dismissed it. See
McGanty v. Staundenraus, 901 P.2d 841, 844 (Or. 1995) (discussing the
requirements for a claim of intentional interference with economic relations under
Oregon law).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the
first amended complaint because further amendment would have been futile. See
Manzarek, 519 F.3d at 1031 (setting forth standard of review and explaining that
denial of leave to amend is improper unless it is clear that the complaint could not
be saved by amendment); see also Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc.,
540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (a district court’s discretion to deny leave to
amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-35405