N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PLASTIC -VIEWINTER NATIONAL, INC .; PLASTIC VIEW

ATC , INC
. , Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. EASTM AN C HEM IC AL C OM PANY; C P FILM S, INC .,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-55284 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-07295-DDP-M R W
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 15, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : NGUYEN a

n d HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd LOGAN, ** Distric t

Judge
. Pla stic -Vie wInte rnationa l, Inc . a nd Pla stic Vie w ATC , Inc . (c olle c t ive ly

“ Pla stic Vie w” ) a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dismissing the ir se c o nd a m e nde d 

# FIL ED DEC 13 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ste ve n Pa

ul Loga n, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa t ion.c om

pla i nt pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C i vil Proc e dure 12(b)(6). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de novo. Lloy d v . C VB Fin. C

orp. , 811 F.3d 1200, 1205 (9th C i r. 2016). W e a ffirm
. 1. In orde r to show tha

t a c ontra c t e xiste d be twe e n the pa rtie s, a pla intiff
m ust ple a d “ som e ba sis for c onc luding tha t the pa rtie s e nga ge d in a

proc e ss of offe r and a c c e pta

nc e , rathe r tha

n inc onc lusive ne gotia

tions.” Ste ine r v . Mobil Oil C orp. , 569 P.2d 751, 760 (C a l. 1977). At most, Ea stm an’ s a l le ge d e m a i ls
am ounte d to a

n invita tion for Pla stic Vie w to m ake an offe r by orde ring spe c ific qua ntitie s of produc ts. Pric e lists “ are not ordina rily inte n de d or unde rstood a s offe rs to se ll.” Re

state me nt (Se c ond) of C

ontrac ts § 26 (Am . La

w Inst. 1981). B e c a use Pla stic Vie w fa ils to ple a d “ [c ] onduc t by both pa rtie s whic h re c ogniz e s the e xiste nc e of a

c ontra c t,” C a l. C om . C ode § 2207(3), thedistric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d its bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im
. 2. Pla stic Vie w a lle ge s tha t Ea stm an prom ise d to supply

window film

and sha d e p roduc ts, whic h Pla stic Vie w would re se ll to its custom e rs, ba se d on the pa rtie s ’ busine ss re lat ionship of over fifty y e a rs. Eve n a ssum ing tha

t this history gave rise to a

n im p lie d distribution a

gre e m e nt, its term s would be“ de te rm ine d by the p artie s’ c ourse of c o nduc t.” Varni Bros. C o rp. v . W ineW orld, Inc
. , 41 C a l. R ptr. 2d 740, 745 (C t. App. 1995). B e c a use the pa rtie s’ c onduc t did not sugge st
2othe rwise , a

ny suc h im p lie d a gre e m e nt wa s te rm ina ble at will by

e i the r pa rty . Se e C a l. C om . C o de § 2309(2); Unte rbe rge r v . Re d Bull N .A., Inc
. , 75 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 368, 373 (C t. App. 2008). 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Pla stic Vie w’ s c l a im for bre a c h of the i m p lie d c ove na

nt of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a ling be c a

use the se c o nd a

m e nde d
c om pla i nt doe s not ple a d fa c ts tha t e sta blish “ a c ontra c tua l re lationship be twe e n the p artie s.” Smith v . C

ity & C ty . of S.F. , 275 C a l. R

ptr. 17, 23 (C t. App. 1990). 4. Pla stic Vie w’ s c l a im

for de c l ara tory

re lie f a lso fa ils be c a

use the re is no

“ a c tua l c ontrove rsy ” re late d to e ithe r party ’ s rights under a c ontra c t. 28 U.S.C .A. § 2201. AFFIRM E D.

3