Opinion ID: 807798
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disclosure Documents

Text: [1] The district court expressly incorporated by reference three disclosure documents for which Defendants sought judicial notice in support of their motion to dismiss. Under the “incorporation by reference” doctrine in this Circuit, “a court may look beyond the pleadings without converting the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment.” Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). Specifically, courts may take into account “documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the [plaintiff ’s] pleading.” Knievel, 393 F.3d at 1076 (alteration in original) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). A court “may treat such a document as part of the complaint, and thus may assume that its contents are true for purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908. [2] In this case, it is beyond dispute that the FAC alleges the contents of the disclosure documents. The complaint emphasizes that only part of the contents of the Important Terms & Disclosure Statement were visible without scrolling down, and that the portion which was visible concerned only the Privacy Statement. Davis also alleges in detail that the Cardmember Agreement and Disclosure Statement did not mention the annual fee, whereas the Additional Disclosure Statement did. Davis does not dispute these references. Instead, he argues that the district court mistakenly determined that he did not challenge the documents’ authenticity. He claims he raised this issue when he stated in his opposition to the motion to dismiss: “There is no evidence that these doc10376 DAVIS v. HSBC BANK NEVADA uments were ever reviewed by Plaintiff or made available to Plaintiff.” We disagree and conclude that Davis did not challenge the documents’ authenticity. Whether or not Davis had access to and reviewed the proffered documents is a matter unrelated to their authenticity — i.e., whether the documents are “what its proponent claims.” Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 533 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 901 (noting that authentication concerns whether “the item is what the proponent claims it is”). Here, Defendants claimed that the documents are copies of the disclosure documents referenced in the FAC. Even assuming these copies were not personally reviewed by Davis, that does not address, much less cast doubt on, whether the copies are accurate reproductions of the original disclosure documents. Therefore, Davis’s objection was insufficient to challenge the documents’ authenticity. Our conclusion is supported by the fact that Davis had ample opportunity in district court to argue that the disclosure documents were not authentic, yet failed to do so. Davis initially objected to the admission of the documents in his opposition to the motion to dismiss the original complaint, on the ground that the documents were not reviewed by or made available to him. In their reply brief, Defendants pointed out that Davis “never questions the[ ] authenticity” of the proffered documents. If Davis had wished to contest this assertion, he could have done so in his subsequent opposition to the motion to dismiss the FAC. Yet he merely repeated verbatim his prior protestation that the documents were not reviewed by, or made available to him. Further, Davis’s “ongoing and substantial reliance on the [documents] as a basis for [his] allegations substantially weakens [his] position.” In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Securities Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in South Ferry LP, No. 2 v. Killinger, DAVIS v. HSBC BANK NEVADA 10377 542 F.3d 776, 784 (9th Cir. 2008). In particular, having based his allegations on the contents and appearance of the Important Terms & Disclosure Statement, “[Davis] can hardly complain when [Defendants] refer to the same information in their defense.” Id. [3] We therefore hold that where the party opposing incorporation by reference argues only that he did not review or have access to the proffered copies, this does not amount to a challenge to those documents’ authenticity. Accordingly, the district court properly incorporated the disclosure documents. Further, we reject Davis’s attempt to challenge the documents’ authenticity for the first time on appeal. Because Davis failed to assert an objection as to authenticity before the district court, he has waived this objection on appeal. See McGonigle v. Combs, 968 F.2d 810, 825 (9th Cir. 1992).