NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICKEY B. REED, No. 15-56988
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01796-DMG-
AGR
v.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL MEMORANDUM*
unincorporated tax exempt not for profit
association; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rickey B. Reed appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his
diversity action alleging breach of implied-in-fact contract and other state law
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
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).
district court’s 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 Reed’s implied-in-fact contract claim
because Reed failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants “voluntarily
accepted [Reed’s proposal] knowing the conditions on which it was tendered and
the reasonable value of the work.” Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965,
967 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the elements of a claim under Desny v. Wilder,
299 P.2d 257 (Cal. 1956), for a breach of implied-in-fact contract when an idea is
furnished by one party to another).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Reed’s motions seeking to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 21-23)
are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-56988