ROBERT WHITE V. SQUARE, INC., No. 16-17137 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 7, 2018.
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT E. WHITE, an individual, and all others similarly situated, No. 16-17137 D.C. No. 3:15-cv-04539-JST Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. SQUARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 14, 2018 Submission Withdrawn June 7, 2018 Resubmitted September 23, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO,** District Judge. Plaintiff Robert E. White appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claim under California’s Unruh Act based on lack of statutory standing. According to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. White’s complaint, White visited Square’s website intending to use its services, encountered terms and conditions that allegedly denied him equal access to its services, and then left the website without entering into an agreement with Square. See White v. Square, Inc., 891 F.3d 1174, 1175-1176 (9th Cir. 2018). The district court held that White lacked standing under the Unruh Act, and White appealed. Because California law in this area was unsettled, we certified a question respecting this issue to the California Supreme Court, see White v. Square, Inc., 891 F.3d 1174 , which subsequently responded, see White v. Square, Inc., 446 P.3d 276 (Cal. 2019). Applying the California Supreme Court’s ruling, the district court erred in concluding that White lacked statutory standing. White sufficiently alleged that he “visited the business’s website, encountered discriminatory terms, and intended to make use of the business’s services.” See White v. Square, Inc., 446 P.3d at 283. Accordingly, White has standing to pursue his Unruh Act claim. Id. REVERSED and REMANDED 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.
