BAHIG SALIBA V. AMERICAN AIRLINES INCORPORATED, No. 23-16070 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BAHIG SALIBA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-16070 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00140-SPL v. MEMORANDUM* AMERICAN AIRLINES INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2024** Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Bahig Saliba appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. * 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). The district court properly dismissed Saliba’s action because Saliba failed to allege facts sufficient to show that American Airlines breached its contractual obligations arising from a 2005 settlement agreement or that a 2005 letter to Saliba constituted a contract. See Demasse v. ITT Corp., 984 P.2d 1138, 1143 (Ariz. 1999) (explaining that a description of an employer’s current policy is “neither a promise nor a statement that could reasonably be relied upon as a commitment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Graham v. Asbury, 540 P.2d 656, 657 (Ariz. 1975) (explaining that an action for breach of contract requires showing “the existence of [a] contract, its breach and the resulting damages”). 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). AFFIRMED. 2 23-16070

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.