NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES THOMAS LONG, on behalf of him self and the proposed class, DBA Jam e s Thom as Long Photography, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. INGENIO, INC., a corporation, DBA AT&T Interactive, Defendant - Appellee. No. 11-17754 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05761-RS
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal fromthe United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding Subm itted October 15, 2013 * * San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge. * * * 

# FILED
OCT 21 2013 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

* * The panel unanim ously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum e nt. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.Plaintiff Jam es Thom as Long appeals the district court’s grant of summ ary

judgm e nt to defendant Ingenio, Inc. in this putative nationwide class action alleging claim s for declaratory relief, unjust enrichm ent, false advertising, and unfair business practices under California state law. Long also appeals the district court’s failure to grant him leave to am end his com plaint to add additio n al parties. We have juris d i ct i o n pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of sum m ary judgm ent. Tehama- Co l u s a Ca nal Auth. v. U.S. D ep’t of the Interior , 721 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). “We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decisions as to am endm ents to the c om plaint.” World Wide Rush, LLC

v. City of Los Angeles , 606 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2010)

. W e af firm the district court’s grant of sum m ary judgm ent to Ingenio and rem and for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. The district c ourt correctly grante d summ ary judgm ent to Ingenio because there i s n o g enuine issue of m aterial fact as to any of Long’s claim s. First, th e r eco r d confirm s t h at t h e allegations in L ong’s com plaint refer to Pay Per Call services provided and advertised by another entity, Pacific Bell D irectory, rather than Ingenio. In addition, Long does not, and cannot, disp ut e t h at the governing Pay Per Call contract about which he c om plains was between him and Pacific B ell Directory, not I n g en i o. Nor can Long dispute that Ingenio had no c omm unications with him
-2-regarding solicitation of the Pay Per Call services, m ade no m isrepresentations to him

regarding such services, and did not bill or charge him for any services. The record contains no evidence that Ingenio comm itted any unlawful, unfai r , o r fraudulent business a ct; engaged in false a dvertising in connection with the Pay Per Call services;

was unjust l y enriched at L ong’s expense; or caused him to suffer econom ic injury. Put sim ply, Long has sued the wrong party, and all of his claim s against Ingenio fail

as a m atter of law. Attem pting to salvage his claim s, Long asserts that I n g en i o established the unconscionabl e P ay P er Call criteria for classifying calls as chargeable, placed

m isleading inform ation about his business into the online “stream of comm erce,” and aided, abetted, and facilitated unlawful, unfai r, or fraudulent acts by providing technical support for the P ay Per Call services. Viewing the facts in the light m ost favorable to Long, w e conclude that these argum ents fin d n o s upport in the record,

m isconstrue the evidence and the law, and fail to raise a genuine issue of m aterial fact

on any of Long’s claim s against Ingenio. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of sum m ary judgm ent to Ingenio. Although the dis t ri ct court entered judgm ent in favor of Ingenio and closed Long’s case, it never expressly ruled on Long’s requests for leave to am end to add parties to his com

plaint. Accord i n g ly, w e decline to consider—and have no basis

-3-up on which to determ ine—whether the district court abused its discretion in t h e

ab s en ce of any ruling on this issue. Instead, we rem and to the district court wi t h instructions to consider in the first instance Long’s request for leave to am end to add additional parties. AFFIRMED IN P ART, RE V E R SE D IN P A R T , A N D RE M A N D E D W ITH INSTRUCTIONS. Each party shall pay its own costs on appeal.

-4-