Case Name: Harold MAPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; Niagara Bottling LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees; Harold Maple, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and Niagara Bottling LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants; Harold Maple, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, Defendants, and Niagara Bottling LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-09
Citations: 649 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: Nos. 13-36089, 14-35038, 14-35059
Parties: Harold MAPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; Niagara Bottling LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees. Harold Maple, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and Niagara Bottling LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants. Harold Maple, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, Defendants, and Niagara Bottling LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GRABER, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 649
Pages: 570–573

Head Matter:
Harold MAPLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; Niagara Bottling LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees. Harold Maple, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and Niagara Bottling LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants. Harold Maple, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, Defendants, and Niagara Bottling LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 13-36089, 14-35038, 14-35059.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 5, 2016.
Filed May 9, 2016.
. Paul Edward Fogarty, Fogarty Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, Scott E. Schutzman, Esquire, Law Offices of Scott E. Schutzman, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kathleen M. O’Sullivan, Esquire, Zachary Pekelis Jones, Perkins Coie LLP, Francis S. Floyd, John A. Safarli, Floyd, Pflueger & Ringer, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GRABER, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Harold Maple appeals the district court's' dismissal, without leave to amend, of his putative class-action complaint alleging deceptive labeling in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act resulting from. his purchase of "VitaRain Tropical Mango Vitamin Enhanced Water Beverage." Defendants Costco Wholesale Corporation and Niagara Bottling LLC cross-appeal, challenging the court's decision to dismiss "without prejudice." We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with instructions to re-enter the judgment "with prejudice."
1. The district court correctly held that the complaint failed to state a claim. See Outdoor Media Grp., Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that we review de novo a dismissal for failure to state claim). As a matter of law, the name of the beverage is not "likely to mislead a reasonable consumer." Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166 Wash.2d 27, 204 P.3d 885, 894-95 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court's decision in Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co., No. CV-09-0395, 2010 WL 2925955 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2010) (unpublished), is not to the contrary. In that case, the court found important that the beverage's name—"vitaminwater"— contained the full names of two of the ingredients and that the label included misleading statements such as "vitamins + water = what's in your hand." Id. at *12-15. Here, the term "Vita" could mean many things, rain could not be an actual ingredient, and the label contains no misleading statements.
To the extent that Plaintiffs claim challenges the labeling of the type of "caffeine" or "tonic" as "natural" or "all natural" and the failure to describe the caffeine and other ingredients as "unnatural," the claim fails because Plaintiff has not alleged that he read those parts of the label. Accordingly, he cannot establish causation. See, e.g., Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc., 162 Wash.2d 59, 170 P.3d 10, 22 (2007) ("A plaintiff must establish .that, but for the defendant's unfair or deceptive practice, the plaintiff would not have suffered an injury.").
2. The district court correctly held that dismissal without leave to amend was proper. On appeal, Plaintiff argues that amendment could save the complaint because he could allege a subclass of plaintiffs who did read the relevant parts of the label. But because Plaintiffs own individual claim fails, dismissal without leave to amend was correct; the potential existence of other classes of which Plaintiff is not a member is irrelevant. Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 560-61 (9th Cir.2010); Boyle v. Madigan, 492 F.2d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir.1974) (citing O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)).
3. The district court abused its discretion by dismissing the action without prejudice. See WPP Luxembourg Gamma Three Sari v. Spot Runner, Inc., 655 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir.2011) (holding that we review for abuse of discretion "a district court's decision to dismiss without prejudice."). The court's only reason, that it "ha[d] not considered the merits of this case," is contrary to law. See, e.g., Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981) (holding that a "dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a 'judgment on the merits' "); accord Plant v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 228, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995).
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment's dismissal of the action "without prejudice" and remand with instructions to re-enter judgment "with prejudice."
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED with instructions. Costs on appeal awarded to Defendants-Appellants/Appellees.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.