Sisley

MEMORANDUM *

Christine Sisley appeals the district court’s dismissal of her four claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as the consumer protection statutes of other states (CLRA); (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The district court dismissed all four claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (b)(6). Sisley also appeals the district court’s denial of her request for certification of a class on the ground that the class would be unmanageable. See Fed.R.CivP. 23. Finally, Sisley appeals the district court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Breach of Contract

The district court dismissed Sisley’s breach of contract claim under Rule 12(b)(1) without an explanation. We assume that the district court dismissed this claim on the ground that Sisley lacked standing because she failed to allege an injury in fact (the ground relied on by *466 Sprint in its motion to dismiss) and hold that a dismissal on this ground was error. A federal plaintiff must allege an…

partially concurring and partially dissenting:

I concur in the memorandum disposition in substantial part, joining all of the analysis of the court with the exception of its remand on the class action certification issue. In my view, we may and should at this stage affirm the denial of certification.

I do not disagree with the majority analysis that the district court’s concerns that a class action would be unmanageable because of California law applying was not adequately explained, and if this were all that the record presented I would agree with the court’s remand of the class certification issue. The district court granted Sprint’s motion to dismiss Sisley’s class action allegation with very little explanation and did not address either why California law would apply to all claims or the possibility of a viable subclass of persons solely within California, which would have eliminated the concern voiced by the district court. Again, if this were all that was presented, I would join in the remand decision.

However, our law is clear that we may affirm on any ground that is supported by the record. Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Venetian Casino…