Lucia Candelario, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RIP CURL, INC., a California corporation and DOES, 1-10, inclusive

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUCIA CANDELARIO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RIP CURL, INC., a California corporation
and DOES, 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56382
D.C. No.
8:16-cv-00963-CJC-AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,*** District
Judge.
* 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).
*** The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Lucia Candelario appeals the district court’s dismissal for lack of Article III
standing of her putative class action lawsuit against Rip Curl, Inc. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In her complaint, Candelario alleges that Rip Curl violated New Jersey’s
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:12-
14 et seq. (“The Act”) because the terms and conditions on Rip Curl’s website
deprived Candelario of a cause of action for risk created by Rip Curl and absolved
Rip Curl of its duty to protect consumers from illegal acts of third parties.
Candelario argues that, as a result of Rip Curl’s violation of the Act, she suffered
“intangible, informational injuries” sufficient to trigger Article III standing.
Candelario’s arguments are foreclosed by Bassett v. ABM Parking Services,
Inc., No. 16-35933, 2018 WL 987954, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2018). As the
district court noted, Candelario failed to identify any concrete informational injury.
Candelario’s conclusory allegation that she suffered “intangible, informational
injuries” based on a violation of the Act alone is too speculative to establish Article
III standing. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --