WILLIAM GILLIAM V. MIKE GALVIN, No. 20-15308 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM H. GILLIAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-15308 D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00127-JAO-RT MEMORANDUM* MIKE GALVIN, AKA J. Michael Galvin; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and AIRBNB, INC.; AIRBNB PAYMENTS, INC., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. * 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). Gilliam’s request for oral argument, set forth in his briefs, is denied. William H. Gilliam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging Lanham Act and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Gilliam’s Lanham Act false advertising claim because Gilliam failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); Ariix, LLC v. NutriSearch Corp., 985 F.3d 1107, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2021) (defining false advertising claim under Lanham Act and setting forth required elements of “commercial advertising or promotion” for such a claim). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 20-15308

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.