Court Opinion

ID: 9895519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 18:00:58.254251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:54.606890
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      NOV 7 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVGENIY GOUSSEV; STACY RITCH,                    No.   22-35454

                  Plaintiffs-Appellants,         D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05708-DGE

    v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a
California Corporation,

                  Defendant-Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Washington
                     David G. Estudillo, District Judge, Presiding

                        Argued and Submitted August 22, 2023
                                 Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

         Evgeniy Goussev and Stacy Ritch (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the dismissal of their

class action alleging that Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. made unlawful recordings

of their private communications in violation of the Washington Privacy Act

*
      This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
(“WPA”). This case is one of five related diversity class actions,1 in which a group

of Washington residents allege that automobile manufacturers recorded and

intercepted their private text messages and call logs from their cellphones when they

connected the phones to their respective vehicle’s on-board infotainment system.

The cases are related because, although the class actions were brought against

different automobile manufacturers, the factual background and legal issues are

essentially identical. In a case consolidated for argument with the instant appeal,

Jones v. Ford Motor Co., No. 22-35447, 2023 WL 7097365 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2023)

(per curiam), we affirmed the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and for the same reasons set out in

Jones, we affirm.

      We conclude, as in Jones, that the district court properly retained jurisdiction

to hear this case. See Jones, 2023 WL 7097365, at *2–3. Plaintiffs’ operative

complaint alleged that the vehicle’s infotainment system downloads and

permanently stores all text messages and call logs from Plaintiffs’ cellphones

without their consent. At the pleading stage, this alleged violation of a substantive

1
  The related cases are Jones v. Ford Motor Co., No. 22-35447, 2023 WL 7097365
(9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2023) (per curiam); Dornay v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., No.
22-35451; Goussev v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 22-35454; McKee v.
Gen. Motors Co., No. 22-35456; and Ritch v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 22-
35448 (calendared separately in September 2023).

                                          2
privacy right is sufficient to confer standing. In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking

Litig., 956 F.3d 589, 598 (9th Cir. 2020).

      We also conclude, as in Jones, that the district court properly dismissed the

merits of Plaintiffs’ claim under the WPA. See Jones, 2023 WL 7097365, at *3.

The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for failure to satisfy the

WPA’s section 9.73.060 statutory injury requirement. To succeed at the pleading

stage of a WPA claim, Plaintiffs must allege an injury to “his or her business, his or

her person, or his or her reputation.” WASH. REV. CODE § 9.73.060. Plaintiffs’

allegation that a violation of the WPA itself is enough to satisfy injury to a “person”

under section 9.73.060, without more, is insufficient to meet the statutory

requirement.2 Jones, 2023 WL 7097365, at *3.

      AFFIRMED.

2
 Because the lack of an injury resolves this case, we need not address the district
court’s alternative holding that the WPA does not extend liability to manufacturing.

                                             3