NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PREMALAL RANASINGHE, No. 15-15310
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00369-ROS
and
MEMORANDUM*
PALINAWADANAGE RAMYA
CHANDRALATHA FERNANDO,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH J. POPOLIZIO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Premalal Ranasinghe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissing his diversity action alleging various Arizona state law violations. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lee v. City
of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ranasinghe’s claim for legal
malpractice because Ranasinghe failed to allege facts sufficient to show an
attorney-client relationship. See Paradigm Ins. Co. v. Langerman Law Offices,
P.A., 24 P.3d 593, 596 (Ariz. 2001) (attorney-client relationship arises when a
person manifests an intent that the lawyer provide legal services for the person, and
the lawyer manifests to the person consent to do so); Phillips v. Clancy, 733 P.2d
300, 303 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986) (setting forth elements of legal malpractice claim).
The district court properly dismissed Ranasinghe’s claim for negligent
misrepresentation because Ranasinghe failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
defendants owed him a duty, and his claim is based upon a promise of future
conduct. See Van Buren v. Pima Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd., 546 P.2d 821, 823 (Ariz.
1976) (a negligent misrepresentation claim requires a showing of a duty owed and
a breach of that duty); McAlister v. Citibank, 829 P.2d 1253, 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App.
1992) (a negligent misrepresentation claim cannot be based upon a promise of
future conduct).
The district court properly dismissed Ranasinghe’s claim for tortious
2 15-15310
interference with contractual relations because Ranasinghe failed to allege facts
sufficient to show a valid contractual relationship or that defendants acted with
improper means or motive. See Neonatology Assocs., Ltd. v. Phoenix Perinatal
Assocs. Inc., 164 P.3d 691, 693-94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (setting forth elements of
tortious interference with contractual relations claim; defendant will ordinarily not
be liable for tortious interference absent a showing that the defendant’s actions
were improper as to means or motive).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Ranasinghe’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the reply brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15310