JONATHAN DAVIDSON, ET AL V. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, ET AL, No. 21-16707 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 1 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JONATHAN MARC DAVIDSON; CORINNA ROSE DAVIDSON, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-16707 D.C. No. 5:16-cv-01928-EJD Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 30, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Jonathan and Corinna Davidson appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s summary judgment de novo. See Sulyma v. Intel Corp. Inv. Policy * 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). Comm., 909 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the Davidsons’ invasion-of-privacy claim. Regardless of whether the Davidsons’ claim arises under the California Constitution or common law, the Davidsons failed to produce sufficient evidence that the Appellees committed a serious invasion of their privacy. The Davidsons provided no evidence that the Appellees committed any intrusion, and the Davidsons’ mere speculation that the Appellees hacked into their electronic devices cannot sustain their summary-judgment burden. See Loomish v. Cornish, 836 F.3d 991, 997 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Mere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment.”). Any claim raised for the first time on appeal is waived. See S.D. Myers, Inc. v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 253 F.3d 461, 473 (9th Cir. 2001). 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.