LUCIA CANDELARIO V. RIP CURL, INC., No. 16-56382 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 29 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUCIA CANDELARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-56382 D.C. No. 8:16-cv-00963-CJC-AGR MEMORANDUM* RIP CURL, INC., a California corporation and DOES, 1-10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2018** Pasadena, California Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,*** District Judge. * 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 Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation. Lucia Candelario appeals the district court’s dismissal for lack of Article III standing of her putative class action lawsuit against Rip Curl, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. In her complaint, Candelario alleges that Rip Curl violated New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:1214 et seq. (“The Act”) because the terms and conditions on Rip Curl’s website deprived Candelario of a cause of action for risk created by Rip Curl and absolved Rip Curl of its duty to protect consumers from illegal acts of third parties. Candelario argues that, as a result of Rip Curl’s violation of the Act, she suffered “intangible, informational injuries” sufficient to trigger Article III standing. Candelario’s arguments are foreclosed by Bassett v. ABM Parking Services, Inc., No. 16-35933, 2018 WL 987954, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2018). As the district court noted, Candelario failed to identify any concrete informational injury. Candelario’s conclusory allegation that she suffered “intangible, informational injuries” based on a violation of the Act alone is too speculative to establish Article III standing. See id. AFFIRMED. 2

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.