IIThe district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Ruiz’s statelaw negligence claim. The elements of a negligence cause of action under California law are (1) the existence of a duty to exercise due care, (2) breach of thatduty, (3) causation, and (4) damages.
Paz v. California
, 994 P.2d 975, 980-81(Cal. 2001).The district court concluded that Ruiz had failed to establish sufficientappreciable, nonspeculative, present harm to sustain a negligence cause of actionunder California law. California has long held that “[i]t is fundamental that anegligent act is not actionable unless it results in injury to another.”
Fields v. Napa Milling Co.
, 330 P.2d 459, 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958). California also holds that“[n]ominal damages, to vindicate a technical right, cannot be recovered in anegligence action, where no actual loss has occurred.”
In addition, in differentcontexts, the California courts have indicated that the mere threat of future harm isinsufficient.
See Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison et al.
, 958P.2d 1062, 1065 (Cal. 1998) (“[N]ominal damages, speculative harm, and the merethreat of future harm are not actual injury.”);
Adams v. Paul
, 904 P.2d 1205, 1209(Cal. 1995) (same).