N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT ALEXANDER

FOR OUZESH, individually

and on be ha lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. STARB UC K S C ORPOR ATION; e t

a l ., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-56355 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-03830-PA-AGR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , W . FLETC HER , a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff Ale xa

nde r Forouz e sh tim e ly

a p p e a ls from the dism i ssa l with pre j udic e of this diversity

a c tion, whic h a lle ge d a va rie ty of C a lifornia

tort a nd sta tutory c l a im s. On de novo re vie w of this dism i ssa l pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of 

# FIL ED MAR 12 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6), Da vis v. HSB C B ank Ne v., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1159 (9th C ir. 2012), we a ffirm
. The sta tutory c la im s fa il a s a

m atte r of la

wbe c a use no re a sona

ble c onsum e r would think (for e xam

p le ) that a 12-ounc e " ic e d" drink, suc h a s ic e d c offe e or ic e d te a , c onta ins 12 ounc e s of c o ffe e or te a and no ic e . Se e Ebne r v. Fre sh, Inc ., 838 F.3d 958, 965 (9th C ir. 2016) (a pply ing the " re a sona

ble c onsum e r" sta

nda rd to C a lifornia c la im s and upholding the dism issa l with pre

judic e of a

sim ila rly spe c ulative c la im ). The fra ud c la im fa ils for thesa

m e re a son be c a

use (e ve n a ssum ing tha

t the re wa s a re p re se ntation) justifia

ble re lia nc e is a b se nt. Se e La z ar v. Supe rior C ourt, 909 P.2d 981, 984 (C a l . 1996) (holding tha t justifia ble re lia nc e is a re quire d
e le m e nt of a

fra ud c la im ). The c la im for bre a c h

of e xpre ss wa

rranty fa i ls be c a

use the c o m

p la int
c onta ins no a lle gation tha t De fe nda nt prom ise d tha

t the ic e d drinks in que stion would c onta in a spe c ific am ount of liquid, a s distinc t from a tota l a m ount of liquid
and ic e . Se e Viggia

no v. Ha nse n Natura l C orp., 944 F. Supp. 2d 877, 893–95 (C .D. C a l. 2013) (sta

ting e le m e nts of e xpre ss wa rranty c la im in C a lifornia ).

2Fina lly , 1 the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion, Le a d singe r, Inc . v. B M G M usic Publ’ g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th C ir. 2008), by de ny ing le ave to
am e nd. The c ourt pe rm i ssibly c onc l ude d tha

t the de fe c ts in Pla intiff’ s the orie s of lia bility c annot be c ure d, so tha

t the re que s te d am e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile
. AFFIRM E D
.

1 Pla intiff ha s wa ive d a

ny argum e nt tha

t dismi ssa l of the a dditional c la im s wa s e rrone ous, be c a

use his ope ning brie f doe s not a ddre ss thosec la im s . Dille y v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1367 (9th C ir. 1995). 3