
    J. Michael SCHAEFER, Plaintiff—counter-defendant—Appellant, v. ROBBINS & KEEHN, APC, Defendant—counter-claimant—Appellee, and L. Scott Keehn, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 08-56448.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 1, 2011.
    J. Michael Schaefer, Baltimore, MD, pro se.
    Loren Scott Keehn, Keehn & Associates, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee/Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In this diversity action, J. Michael Schaefer appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for Robbins & Keehn, APC, on his fraud claim, and on Robbins & Keehn’s counterclaim for unpaid legal fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Monism v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Schaefer’s fraud claim because Schaefer failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to the elements of fraudulent concealment. See Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144, 1156 n. 3 (9th Cir.2000) (setting forth requirements for fraudulent concealment under California law).

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Robbins & Keehn on its account stated claim because Robbins & Keehn showed that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to any element of this claim, and Schaefer failed to create a triable dispute as to any defense to the claim. See Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v. La. Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538, 1542-43 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (discussing account stated claim under California law); Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669, 689 (2000) (addressing principles of uncon-scionability).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Schaefer’s ex parte application to continue the discovery deadline. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir.2002) (setting forth standard of review and good cause requirement).

Schaefer’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Schaefer’s “Request for Clarification,” entered on October 17, 2011, is denied as moot.

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