NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL DAVID JOSEPH, No. 16-55370
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-06899-SVW-KK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
APOTEX CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
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).
Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from district court’s summary judgment in
his diversity action alleging claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law
(“UCL”) in connection with the labeling of a prescription drug. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Daniel v. Ford Motor
Co., 806 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Joseph’s UCL
claims because Joseph failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether he relied on the absence of a country of origin marking before purchasing
atorvastatin from defendant Costco. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 (standing
under the UCL requires plaintiff’s injury to occur “as a result of” defendant’s
misconduct); Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 246 P.3d 877, 885-88 (Cal. 2011)
(to bring a claim under the UCL, a plaintiff must have economic injury caused by
the defendant’s unfair business practice); see also Daniel, 806 F.3d at 1225 (“To
prove reliance on an omission, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s
nondisclosure was an immediate cause of the plaintiff’s injury-producing
conduct.”).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
2