Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, plaintiffs Steven and Melody Millett pursued claims against defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and ConsumerInfo.com, Inc., challenging a summary judgment decision by the district court. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants regarding Melody Millett's claims, citing her lack of standing under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) as she did not purchase the service nor was a third-party beneficiary. The court also upheld the summary judgment for Steven Millett's contract claim, aligning with the district court's rationale. However, the appellate court vacated the summary judgment concerning Steven Millett's CLRA claims, remanding for reconsideration due to the California Supreme Court's precedent in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., mandating proof of actual damage for CLRA standing. The denial of the motion for reconsideration was reviewed and upheld, as the consumer survey evidence was deemed inadmissible under Local Rule 7-18. The decision resulted in a partial affirmation and remand, with no costs awarded on appeal, and is non-precedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Motion for Reconsideration and Evidence Admissibilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the district court's denial of the motion for reconsideration, finding no abuse of discretion in excluding consumer survey evidence as it did not constitute 'new evidence' under local rules.
Reasoning: The court reviewed the district court's denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion and found no error in excluding consumer survey evidence, as it did not qualify as 'new evidence' under Local Rule 7-18.
Standing for CLRA Claims and Actual Damage Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court vacated the summary judgment for Steven Millett's CLRA claims, remanding the case for reconsideration in light of the California Supreme Court’s ruling requiring actual damage to establish standing.
Reasoning: However, for Steven Millett's CLRA claims, the court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the matter for reconsideration based on the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., which established that a consumer must demonstrate actual damage to have standing under the CLRA.
Standing under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that Melody Millett lacked standing under the CLRA because she neither purchased the Credit Manager nor alleged to be a third-party beneficiary.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Melody Millett, determining she lacked standing under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) as she did not purchase the Credit Manager and was not a party to the contract in question, nor did she claim to be a third-party beneficiary.
Summary Judgment on Contract Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The summary judgment in favor of the defendants was upheld for Steven Millett's contract claim, consistent with the district court's analysis.
Reasoning: The court also upheld the summary judgment for Steven Millett regarding the contract claim, agreeing with the district court's reasoning.