N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M OLLY B R OW

N; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. M ADISON REED, INC .,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 22-16415 D.C . No. 3:21-c v-01233-WHO
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Horsle y Orric k, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d and Subm itte d De c e m

be r 6, 2023 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, B RESS, and JOHNSTONE, C irc uit Judge s . Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts M olly B rown, Ke ppie M oore , a nd Audre y

She ffle r a ppe a l a distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l of the ir puta tive c la ss a c tion a ga inst De fe ndantAppe l le e M a dison Re e d, Inc . B e c a use at le a st one nam e d pla intiff is diverse from de fe nda nts, we have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1332(d)(2). W e AFFIRM the 

# F IL ED DEC 13 2023 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.distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of a ll c la im s. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t ua l a nd proc e dura l history

of the c a se , we ne e d

not re c ount it here . W e re vie w de novo m otions to dism iss for fa ilure to sta

te a c l a im unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure (“ R ule ” ) 12(b)(6). Be nav ide

z v . C nty . of San Die go , 993 F .3d 1 1 34, 1 1 41 (9th C ir . 2021). “ W e m ay a f firm the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the c om

p la int on a

ny ba s is supporte d by

the re c ord.” Sonne r v

. Pr e mie r N utrition C orp. , 971 F .3d 834, 839 (9th C ir . 2020). “ Dism issa l is
a ppropria te if the pla intif

f ha s not ‘ a lle ge [d] e nough fa c ts to sta t e a c la im to re lie f that is pla usibleon its fa c e .’ ” Be c e rra v . Dr Pe ppe r/Se v e n Up, Inc
. , 945 F .3d 1225, 1228 (9th C ir . 2019) (a lte ration in origina l ) (quoting T

urne r v . C ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 788 F .3d 1206, 1210 (9th C ir . 2015)). Ea c h pla intiff a dva

nc e s c la im s unde r thre e C a lifornia c onsum e r prote c tion sta tute s: theC onsum e r Le g a l R e m e die s Ac t (“ C L R A” ), C a l. C i v. C o de §§ 1750–1784, the

Fa lse Adve rtising La

w (“ FAL” ), C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode §§ 17500–17509, a

nd the Unfa ir C om

pe tition La

w (“ UC L ” ), C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode §§ 17200–17210. As pla intiffs’ c la im s unde r the C L R A, FAL, a

nd UC L a ll sound in fra

ud, the y m u s t ple a d the m

with pa rtic ula rity
. Moore v . Mars Pe tc are US, Inc
. , 966 F.3d 1007, 1016, 1019–20 (9th C ir. 2020); Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 9(b). Unde r the C LR

A, FAL, a

nd UC L’ s re a sona

b le c onsum e r te st, pla intiffs m ust
2“ show tha

t ‘ m e m be rs of the public are like ly to be de c e ive d.’ ” W

i lliams v . Ge rbe r Prods. C o. , 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting Fre e man v . Time , Inc
. , 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th C ir. 1995)). “ [W ] he re pla intiffs ba se de c e ptive a dve rtising
c la im s on unre a sona

ble or fanc iful inte rpre tations of la be ls or othe r a d

ve rtising, dism issa l on the ple a dings m a y we l l be justifie d.” M

oorev . Trade r J

o e ’s C o. , 4 F.4th 874, 882–83 (9th C ir. 2021) (quoting Be ll v . Publix Supe r Mark

e ts, Inc
. , 982 F.3d 468, 477 (7th C ir. 2020)). I The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing M oore ’ s c la im s. M oore argue s that M a dison Re e d’ s ra dia

nt ha ir C olor Kit (“ C o l or Kit” ) la be l sta te m e nt tha

t its produc t wa s “ Fre e of” am m o nia , re sorc inol, a

nd PPD wa s m isle a ding, be c a use a lthough true , the re pla c e m e nt ingre die nts we re le ss sa fe
. M oore a dm its tha

t the sta te m e nts on thefront of thepa c ka ging we re true and that the list of ingre die nts on theba c k of the pa c ka ge wa s a lso a c c urate . She
argue s tha

t the sta te m e nt on thefront pa c ka ging tha t the produc t

wa s “ fre e of” spe c ifie d ingre die nts im

plie s som e thing m ate ria l a bout the ir re pla c e m e nts. Howe ve r, the sta

te m e nts on thela

be l we re a c c urate , a

nd the re we re “ no othe r words, pic ture s, or dia gram s a dorning thepa c ka ging . . . from whic h any

infe re nc e c ould be drawn or on whic h any re a sona ble be lie f c o uld be ba se d.” Ebne r v . 3Fre

sh, Inc
. , 838 F.3d 958, 966 (9th C ir. 2016). The re fore , the re wa s no a c tiona ble
m isre pre se ntation. Id. 1 Any am biguity arising from

the “ Fre e of” sta

te m e nt on the pa c ka ge front “ c an

be re solve d by

re fe re nc e to theba c k la

be l .” Mc Ginity

v . Proc te r & Gamble C

o . , 69 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th C ir. 2023).

II The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing B rown’ s c la i m s. She a lle ge s tha t the s tat e m e nts on the la

be l a nd M a dison Re e d’ s we bsite we re de c e ptive . The distric t c o urt prope rly

c onc lude d tha

t the a pplic a ble sta tute of lim ita

tions ba rre d
m any of he r c la im s a

nd tha t othe r c la im s fa ile d unde r a R ule 9(b) a na ly sis. B rown doe s not c ha l le nge those rulings on a ppe a l. The distric t c ourt prope rly de te rm i ne d tha

t the re m a ining c la im s fa ile d be c a use the re fe re nc e d sta

te m e nts we re e ithe r a c c urat e or puffe ry . To thee xte nt B rown’ s m isre pre se ntation c la im s re ly on the C olor Kits’ la

be ling, those

c la im s we re a ppropria te ly dism isse d for the sa

m e re a sons a s M oore ’ s we re . As to thesta

te m e nts on thewe bsite , the sta te m e nt tha

t the produc t wa s

“ Am m onia -Fre e ” wa s a c c urat e . The re m a i ning sta te m e nts tha

t the produc t wa s

“ Sa lon Gorge ous,” “ Sa lon Qua lity , ” and ha d “ Ingre d ie nts with Inte grity ,” are not

1 B e c a use the C olor Kit pa c ka ging disc lose d the ingre die nts tha

t re pla c e d am m o nia , re sorc inol, a

n d PPD, the produc ts a lso did not de c e ptive ly om it m ate ria l inform at ion. Se eHodsdon v . Mars, Inc
. , 891 F.3d 857, 861 (9th C ir. 2018). 4m isre pre se ntations, but ra the r nona c tiona

ble puffe ry . N

e w c al Indus., Inc . v . Ik

on Offic eSol. , 513 F.3d 1038, 1053 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ [W ] he the r an a l le ge d
m isre pre se ntation ‘ is a

sta te m e nt of fa c t’ or is inste a d ‘ m e re puffe ry ’ is a le ga l que stion tha

t m ay be re solve d on a R

ule 12(b)(6) m otion.”(quoting C ook , Pe rk iss & Lie h e v . N

. C al. C olle c tion Se rv ., Inc
. , 911 F.2d 242, 245 (9th C ir. 1990))); N e w c al , 513 F.3d a

t 1053 (sta

te m e nts tha

t are “ qua ntifia ble ” or re fe r to “ spe c ific or a bsolutec ha

ra c t e ristic s” are a c t iona

ble m isre pre se ntations, but “ g e ne ra l, subje c tive ” c la im s a

re puffe ry ). He re , re fe re nc e s to “ Sa lon” or “ Inte grity ,” without
m ore , a re a bstra c t a nd do not sugge st a

nything a bout M a dison Re e d’ s produc t
sa fe ty . N e w c al , 513 F.3d a

t 1053 (thesta

t e m e nt tha

t a c o m pa ny ’ s c ontra c ts prom ise d “ fle xibility” i s puffe ry ). III The distric t c ourt c o nc l ude d tha t She ffle r c ould not a sse rt c la im s unde r C a lifornia la w. She ffle r doe s not c ha lle nge or re but this dete rm ination on a ppe a l, so he r c la im s a

re forfe i te d. Gre e nw ood v
. FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C ir. 1994). IV Give n our re solution of the issue s, we ne e d

not— a nd do not—de c ide any othe r issue s ra ise d

on a ppe a l by the pa rtie s. AFFIRM E D.
5