JOHN STIEGLER V. JOHNNY SALDAT, No. 15-35911 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN C. STIEGLER; DWIGHT A. HOLMES, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, No. 15-35911 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01309-TSZ Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MEMORANDUM* JOHNNY SALDAT, individually; MARILYN CARTWRIGHT, individually; PAYMAN MEHRANI, individually; GORDON YAM, individually; KAREN KLEIN, individually; PATTY KLASCIUS, individually; MARLENE SCOTT, individually; MIKE CREIGHTON, individually; BILL GRAF, individually, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 6, 2017 Seattle, Washington * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. John C. Stiegler and Dwight A. Holmes (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of their Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) claims. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.020 et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Ariz. Students’ Ass’n v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2016)), we affirm.1 The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ CPA claims. Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts plausibly establishing “that the public has an interest” in this private dispute regarding internal corporate decision making. Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531, 538 (Wash. 1986). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims, which are “directed at the competence of and strategies employed by” Defendants, are beyond the CPA’s scope. Michael v. Mosquera–Lacy, 200 P.3d 695, 699 (Wash. 2009) (quoting Ramos v. Arnold, 169 P.3d 482, 486 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007)). Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to state a CPA claim. AFFIRMED. 1 Because our decision does not rely on Wash. Rev. Code § 24.06.035, the Motion to Strike, Dkt. No. 39, is denied as moot. 2