Wasco Products, Inc. v. Southwall Technologies, Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

Wasco Products, Inc. (Wasco) appeals from the summary judgment based upon *911 the economic loss doctrine and the applicable statutes of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I.

We first turn to the standing issues raised by Bostik, Inc. (Bostik) and Southwall Technologies, Inc. (Southwall). Although these issues were never argued in the district court, standing may be raised for the first time on appeal. See Animal Prot. Inst. v. Model of Am., 860 F.2d 920 , 923 (9th Cir.1988). Because of the lack of any current business relationship between the parties, there is no “immediate threat” to Wasco, see City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), nor any likelihood Wasco “will be wronged again.” See Hangarter v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1021-22 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we conclude that Wasco lacks standing to seek injunctive relief.

We reject Southwall’s self-harm standing argument, however, because we conclude there is a genuine issue of material fact as to causation of the harm. See Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938 , 947 (9th…