Court Opinion

ID: 9441995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:22:37.899171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:48.448189
License: Public Domain

RYMER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I would reverse because I cannot say that leave to amend would be futile. The promotional materials do not define “double or special issue.” The contract, fraud, and misleading advertising claims could be viable after further development of the record to show what the parties intended the terms to mean and how a reasonable consumer would have understood the terms. See Richeson v. Helal, 158 Cal.App.4th 268, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 18, 25 (2007); Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 1351, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 22, 30 (2003).