Victoria Gonzalez v. Kinro, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

The plaintiffs in this class action appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Kinro. We affirm the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs lack standing to proceed.

An order granting or denying summary judgment is reviewed de novo, see Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.2009), as is a district court’s decision on standing, see Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir.2002).

Standing under Article III of the Constitution requires an injury in fact. See D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.2008) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). Section 17204 of California’s Unfair Competition Law incorporates the federal injury in fact standard. See Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17204; Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 , 120 Cal. Rptr.3d 741 , 246 P.3d 877, 884-85 (Cal. 2011). To demonstrate an injury in fact, a plaintiff must show the “invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or…