Case Name: Alen BAGHDASARIAN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMAZON.COM INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-10
Citations: 458 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 10-55012
Parties: Alen BAGHDASARIAN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. AMAZON.COM INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 458
Pages: 622–624

Head Matter:
Alen BAGHDASARIAN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. AMAZON.COM INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-55012.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 12, 2011.
Filed Nov. 10, 2011.
Michael David Braun, Braun Law Group, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, Marc R. Stanley, Esquire, Stanley Mandel & Iola LLP, Dallas, TX, Matthew J. Zevin, Esquire, Stanley Mandel Iola, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Luke G. Anderson, K & L Gates, LLP, Irvine, CA, Jon Michaelson, Michael R. Haven, K & L Gates LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable William K. Sessions, III, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Vermont, Burlington, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alen Baghdasarian appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Amazon.com, Inc. Baghdasarian argues that the district court incorrectly found that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether he established reliance as required by California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
No genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Baghdasarian relied upon Amazon's policy regarding its shipping and handling fee in deciding to purchase books through the Amazon Marketplace. The UCL requires a plaintiff to have "lost money or property as a result of" the business practice or act at issue. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 (emphasis added). The UCL's "as a result of' language imposes an "actual reliance" requirement, thus, to prevail, a plaintiff must establish that the alleged misrepresentation was an "immediate cause" or "substantial factor" in the plaintiffs decision to engage in the injury-producing conduct. In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 326-27, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559, 207 P.3d 20 (2009).
When deposed, Baghdasarian testified that his decision to purchase books through the Marketplace was driven by total cost and security, factors that are unrelated to Amazon's alleged misrepresentation. He also testified that even if he had been aware of Amazon's practices with regard to the shipping and handling fee, he would not have been deterred from making the purchases. Although Baghdasarian asserts he believed and relied upon Amazon's representations regarding the shipping and handling fee, no evidence indi cates that those representations were an "immediate cause" or "substantial factor" in his decision to purchase books through the Marketplace. Indeed, given Baghda-sarian's testimony that in making his purchasing decisions he shops comparatively to pay the lowest cost, including shipping, the existence of a hidden "holdback fee" in Amazon's price was not a factor that could have affected his decision to purchase on the Marketplace.
We therefore affirm the district court's conclusion that Baghdasarian cannot demonstrate actual reliance. We do not reach the issue of whether plaintiff established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Baghdasarian lost money or property. Cf. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 246 P.3d 877 (2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.