FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 21 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARY KAY BECKMAN, No. 17-16043
Plaintiff-Appellant, DC No. CV 13-0097 JCM NJK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATCH.COM, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 11, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and CHATIGNY,**
District Judge.
Mary Kay Beckman appeals the district court’s order dismissing her
amended complaint against Match.com (“Match”). We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Robert N. Chatigny, United States District Judge for
the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Cervantes
v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Beckman failed to state a
negligence claim for failure to warn under Nevada law. Beckman’s amended
complaint asserts that Match was negligent by failing to warn her that another user,
with whom the dating website matched her and who later viciously attacked
Beckman, was dangerous. However, Nevada law provides that one party has no
duty to warn another party unless there is a “special relationship” between the
parties. Sanchez ex rel. Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 221 P.3d 1276, 1281
(Nev. 2009) (holding that no special relationship existed between a pharmacy and
third parties harmed by the pharmacy’s patients). Nevada courts have never
recognized a special relationship akin to that between Beckman and Match, cf.
Scialabba v. Brandise Const. Co., 921 P.2d 928, 930 (Nev. 1996) (noting that
special relationships have been found in cases of “landowner-invitee,
businessman-patron, employer-employee, school district-pupil, hospital-patient,
and carrier-passenger”), and Beckman failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
her ability to provide for her own protection was limited by her “submission to the
control of the other” such that a special relationship should be found here, Sparks
v. Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, Inc., 255 P.3d 238, 244–45 (Nev. 2011) (quoting
2
Scialabba, 921 P.2d at 930); see also Wiley v. Redd, 885 P.2d 592, 596 (Nev.
1994) (holding that no special relationship existed between an alarm company and
the police department the company alerted). Because Beckman failed sufficiently
to allege a special relationship between her and Match, there was no duty to warn
under Nevada law; therefore, her negligence claim fails.
Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Beckman’s amended complaint
is
AFFIRMED.
3