N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JINNI TEC H LTD; B R

UC E R OYC E , Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. RED.C OM , INC .; RED.C OM , LLC ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-35789 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-00217-JLR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 9, 2021 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , WATFORD, a nd C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s. Jinni Te c h

Ltd. a nd its founder B ruc e R o y c e (“ Pla intiffs” ) a ppe a l from

the distric t c o urt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of RED.c om , Inc . a

nd 

# FIL ED JUL 19 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).RED.c om , LLC (toge the r, “ RED” ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. First, Pla intiffs c la im

tha t c om m e nts poste d onlineby RED’ s pre side nt, Ja rre d La nd, a c c use d

Pla intiffs of ste a ling or ha c k ing R ED’ s inte lle c tua l prope rty in orde r to de ve lop wha

t Pla intiffs de sc ribe a s a c om pe ting produc t. Pla i ntiffs
argue d in the ir First Am e nde d C om pla int a nd in the ir opposition to R ED’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt tha

t the se sta te m e nts a m ounte d to de fam ation pe r

se a s to B ruc e R oy c e and tra de libe l a s to Jinni Te c h Ltd. unde r W a shington la w . Se e Life De signs Ranc h , Inc . v . Somme r , 364 P.3d 129, 134 (W a sh. C t. App. 2015); Auv il v
. C BS 60 Minute

s , 67 F.3d 816, 820 (9th C ir. 1995). In gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt in R ED’ s favor on the se c la im s with re s pe c t to sta te m e n ts c o nc e rning unla

wful or
c rim ina l be havior, the distric t c ourt re lie d sole ly on the ground tha

t no suc h sta te m e nts we re m a de by

La nd. In doing so, howe

ve r, the distric t c ourt a

p pe ars to have ina dve rte ntly

ove rlooke d La

nd’ s sta te m e nts a nd inste a d a d dre sse d only
c om m e n ts poste d

by RED c ustom e rs a

nd fa ns. Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the
sum m ary judgm e nt orde r a s to the se two c la im s a n d re m a n d to the distric t c ourt to
a llow it to c onside r whe the r Land’ s c om m e nts c onstitute

de fam ation pe r seor tra de libe l. W e le av e for the distric t c ourt to a ddre ss, in thefirst insta nc e , the pa

rtie s’
a dditiona l a

rgum e nts c onc e rning the se c la im s.
2Se c ond, we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt a s to Pla i ntiffs’ othe r c la im s. The se c la im s inc lude inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m o tiona l distre s s, ne glige nt inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss, fa lse light, tortious inte rfe re nc e , and viola tions unde r the La

nha m Ac t a nd W a shington’ s C onsum e r Prote c t ion Ac t. Pla i ntiffs c ite no a

uthority supporting the ir a

rgum e nt tha

t da m a ge s pre sum e d for purpose s of the ir de fam ation pe r se c la im m ay be a c tua l dam a ge s for the purpose s of the se othe r c la im s. Pla i ntiffs’ argum e nt fa ils, a nd we hold tha

t the distric t c ourt
c orre c tly grante d sum

m ary judgm e n t a s to the se c la im s. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts. V ACAT E D in par t, AFFIRM E D in par t.

3