
    Debra M. BALESTRA-LEIGH; Stephen M. Balestra, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jessica K. BALESTRA, fka Jessica K. Eslava-Barbieri, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-17621.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 7, 2012.
    
      Kirk Cowan Johnson, Esquire, G. David Robertson, Esquire, Robertson & Benevento, Reno, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Jessica K. Eslava-Barbieri, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Debra M. Balestra-Leigh and Stephen M. Balestra appeal from the district court’s judgment in their diversity action against Jessica K. Balestra alleging breach of contract and various torts related to their deceased father’s estate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because appellants failed to allege facts sufficient to state any claim for relief. See Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc., 114 Nev. 441, 956 P.2d 1382, 1387 (1998) (explaining elements of negligent misrepresentation claim and that the claim applies only within a “business or commercial transaction”); Wichinsky v. Mosa, 109 Nev. 84, 847 P.2d 727, 729-30 (1993) (elements of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim); Bernard v. Rockhill Dev. Co., 103 Nev. 132, 734 P.2d 1238, 1240 (1987) (“A breach of contract may be said to be a material failure of performance of a duty arising under or imposed by agreement.”). Moreover, appellants point to no Nevada law recognizing their claims for tortious interference with expectancy of inheritance or promissory/tortious estoppel.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to entertain appellants’ declaratory relief claim because all other claims were properly dismissed and there were ongoing probate proceedings in which the validity of the prenuptial agreement would necessarily be decided. See United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. R & D Latex Corp., 141 F.3d 916, 918-19 (9th Cir.1998) (setting forth standard of review and explaining discretionary jurisdiction).

Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     