Weinstein

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Richard A. Weinstein appeals the district court’s dismissal of this action. We in part affirm and in part vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

The appeal from the district court’s dismissal of Weinstein’s express warranty claim, last stated in the Second Amended Complaint, is unavailing, as he alleged no facts in his pleading suggesting that the vehicle’s warranty explicitly covered touch tone functionality in the OnStar system.

Weinstein’s statutory claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750 et seq., the Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and the False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code § 17500 et seq., “are governed by the ‘reasonable consumer’ test.” Williams v. Gerber Prod. Co., 523 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir.2008). Under *426 that standard, a plaintiff “must show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ ” Id. (some internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir.1995)). That is a question not ordinarily appropriate for determination on the pleadings. Id. at…