N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAM ES THOM AS LONG, DB A Ja m e s Thom a s Long Photogra

phy , on be ha l f of him se lf a nd the propose d c la ss, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. INGENIO, INC ., DB A AT& T Inte ra c tive , a c orporation; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-16810 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-05761-R S
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 R ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 21, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TR OTT a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FAB ER , ** Distric t

Judge
. 

# FIL ED APR 28 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 David A. Fa

be r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of W e st Virginia , sitting by de signa tion.Jam e s Long a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s (1) e ntry

of sum m ary judgm e n t in favor of de fe nda

nts (c olle c tive ly , “ Ye llowpa g e s” ) on his c la i m s for de c la ratory and injunc tive re lie f unde r se c tions 17203 a nd 17535 of the

C a l ifornia

B usine ss a

nd Profe ssions C ode 1 and (2) de nia l of Long’ s m o tion for le a ve to file an am e nde d
c om pla i nt a dding a

se c ond na

m e d pla intiff in this puta

tive c la s s a c tion. It is undispute d tha

t Long “ c urre ntly

ha s no c ontra c tua l re lationship with [Ye llowpa ge s] and the re fore is not pe rsona lly thre ate ne d by

[its] c onduc t.” Hangarte r v . Prov ide nt Life & Ac c ide nt Ins. C

o. , 373 F.3d 998, 1022 (9th C ir. 2004). Long there fore la c ks a re a l or im

m e diate thre at of a

n irre pa ra ble injury tha t would support his Artic le III sta nding to pursue injunc tive re lie f. Se e id. at 1021–22. Long’ s c la im

for de c la ra tory re lie f is m oot. Ye llowpa ge s re p re se nte d to the distric t c o urt at sum

m ary judgm e nt tha

t it would not se e k

to file a c la im

for any pa ym e nt obliga

tions inc urre d by

Long, a n d Ye llowpa ge s’ s fa ilure to a sse rt a tim e ly
c om pulsory c ounte rc la im

pre c lude s it, a s a

m atte r of la

w, from pursuing a c la im for c o lle c tion. Se e C a l. C iv. Proc . C ode § 426.30; Se mte k Int’l, Inc . v . Loc k

he e d

1 Long did not spe c ific a l ly and distinc tly c ha lle n ge the distric t c ourt’ s e ntry of sum m a ry judgm e nt on his c la im s for m one ta ry re l ie f, so we do not c onside r the m . Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). 2Martin C

orp. , 531 U.S. 497, 508–09 (2001); C urrie Me d . Spe c ialtie

s, Inc . v . Bow e n , 136 C a l. App. 3d 774, 776–77 (1982). Although Long’ s c la im s for de c la ratory re l ie f are m oot, a

ny c la ss m e m

be r who ha d pa id m one y

to Ye llowpa ge s would befre e to pursuec la ss-wide m one ta ry
and de c la ra tory re lie f c la im s a

nd c ould re

j e c t Ye llowpa ge s’ s e fforts to sa tisfy the individual c la im s . Se e C

ampbe ll-Ew ald C

o. v . Gome

z , 136 S. C t. 663, 670 (2016). The se c la im s a

re a c c o rdingly

not “ transitory ” so a s to ke e p the c a se a live until the distric t c o urt ha s the opportunity to rule on c la ss c e rtific ation. C he n v . Allstate

Ins. C o. , 819 F.3d 1136, 1142–43 (9th C ir. 2016); P i tts v . Te rrible He rbst, Inc

. , 653 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th C ir. 2011). The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not err in
e nte ring sum

m ary judgm e nt a

nd dismissing the

e ntire la wsuit be fore re a c h ing c la s s
c e rtific ation. Se e Emp’rs-Te amste rs Loc al N os. 175 & 505 Pe nsion Trust Fund v

. Anc hor C apital Adv isors , 498 F.3d 920, 924 (9th C ir. 2007); K u ahulu v . Emp’rs Ins. of W ausau , 557 F.2d 1334, 1337–38 (9th C ir. 1977). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion by de ny ing le ave to
am e nd. 2 The re c ord re fle c ts tha t Long “ fa ile d to justify

the de la y in se e king le ave to a m e nd the c o m

pla i nt,” Park

e r v . J oeLujan Ente r

s., Inc
. , 848 F.2d 118, 121 (9th

2 The re c ord doe s not re fle c t tha t a ny ne w pla intiff file d a

m otion to inte rve ne , so we re

je c t Long’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the distric t

c o urt should ha

ve grante d suc h a m otion. 3C ir. 1988), a nd file d the propose d am e ndm e nt whilea sum m ary judgm e nt m otion
ra ising a rgum e n ts spe c ific to Long wa s pe nding, c f. S c hlac te r-J

one s v . Ge n. Te l. of C al. , 936 F.2d 435, 443 (9th C ir. 1991) a brogate d on othe r grounds by

C rame r v . C onsol. Fre ightw ay

s, Inc
. , 255 F.3d 683 (9th C ir. 2001) (e n ba nc ). The distric t
c ourt ide ntifie d

an d a pplie d the c orre c t le ga l sta n da rd from Foman v . Dav is , 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), a

n d its findings tha

t Long’ s propose d am e ndm e nt wa s unduly de la y e d a nd unduly pre judic ia l we re not c le arly

e rrone ous. AFFIRM E D.

4