Andrews v. Rogich
Andrews v. Rogich
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Kenn Andrews appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing under
Because the written agreement between Andrews and Rogich contained a clear intent not to be bound, the district court did not err in dismissing Andrews’ action because no contract was formed. See Tropicana Hotel Corp. v. Speer, 101 Nev. 40, 692 P.2d 499, 502 (Nev. 1985).
Andrews’ contentions regarding discovery are considered and rejected.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.