Darren Millam v. Energizer Brands, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARREN MILLAM; DONALD No. 23-55192 SPRINKEL, individually and on behalf of all others situated, D.C. No. 5:21-cv-01500-JWH-SHK

Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM*

v.

ENERGIZER BRANDS, LLC;

ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John W. Holcomb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

On its packaging, Energizer claimed its AA MAX batteries are “up to 50%

longer lasting than basic alkaline in demanding devices.” Plaintiffs sued under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). California’s consumer protection laws, alleging Energizer’s advertising…