Richard B. Goodin v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, a California corporation;

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).
GT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD B. GOODIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
corporation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17265
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00074-DAE-
BMK
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David Alan Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

GT/Research 08-17265 2
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, 21 P.3d 452,
464 (Haw. 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.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --