N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JULIAN ENGEL, a

n Individual, On B e h a lf of Him se lf a

n d All Othe rs Sim ila

rly Situa te d, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. NOVEX B IOTEC H, LLC , a Uta h Lim ite d Lia bility C om pa ny and GNC C ORPOR ATION, De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 15-15492 D.C . No. 3:114-c v -03457-M EJ 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 M aria -Ele na

Ja m e s, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 12, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E and M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a n d ERIC KSON, ** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED APR 21 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 R a lph R . Eric kson, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of North Da

kota , sitting by

de signa tion.Julia

n Enge l a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt judgm e nt dismissing his se c ond am e nde d c o m

pla int for fa iling to sta

te a c la im upon whic h re lie f c an be grante d. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . For the re a s ons sta

t e d in a c onc urre ntly

file d opinion in Se re na K w an, e t al. v . SanMe dic a Inte rnational , No. 15-15496, 1 the distric t c ourt c orre c t ly a p plie d e sta blishe d C a lifornia

la w. Ne ithe r C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om pe tition La

w (‘ the UC L” ) nor its C onsum e r Le ga l R e m e die s Ac t (“ the C LR A” ) provide s c onsum e rs with a priva te c a use of a c tion to e nforc e the substa ntia t ion provisions of C a lifornia ’ s unfa ir c om

pe t ition or c onsum e r prote c tion la ws. As in K w an , the distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t Enge l ’ s se c ond am e nde d c o m

pla int did not a

lle ge suffic ie nt fa c ts to support a c la i m tha t de fe nda n t’ s a dve rtising c la im s we re a c tua lly fa l se . The se c ond a

m e n de d c om

pla int re sts on a lle gations tha

t de fe nda nt’ s m arke ting c la im s a

re not supporte d by

any re lia ble c linic a l tria ls a

nd tha t a c om p re he nsive se arc h c ould not produc e any public ation to support c la im s tha t de fe nda nt’ s produc t, Growth Fa c tor-9, wa s c linic a lly te ste d a s c la im e d on its pa c ka ging. The se a lle g ations do not support a finding tha

t the a dve rtising c la im s a

re a c t ua lly fa lse , only

tha t the y la c k

1 For purpose s of ora l a

rgum e nt only , we c onsolida te d this a ppe a l with the a ppe a l in K

w a n. 2substa

ntia tion. As it did in K

w an , the distric t c ourt a

ppropria te ly de c line d Enge l’ s invita t ion to inc o rporate La

nh am Ac t a na ly sis into C a lifornia c onsum e r prote c tion la w. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting them otion to dism

iss Enge l’ s se c ond am e nde d c o m

pla int. Furthe r, a s in K

w an , the distric t c o urt provide d am ple guida n c e for Enge l to a lle ge suc c e ssfully

a c la im of a c tua l fa lse hood whe n it dism i sse d the first a

m e nde d c om pla i nt with le ave to a

m e nd. The re fore , the c ourt did not err in dismissing the se c o nd a m e nde d c om

pla int with pre

judic e . AFFIRM E D.

3