John C. Stiegler v. Johnny Saldat, individually

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN C. STIEGLER; DWIGHT A.
HOLMES, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JOHNNY SALDAT, individually;
MARILYN CARTWRIGHT, individually;
PAYMAN MEHRANI, individually;
GORDON YAM, individually; KAREN
KLEIN, individually; PATTY
KLASCIUS, individually; MARLENE
SCOTT, individually; MIKE
CREIGHTON, individually; BILL GRAF,
individually,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-35911
D.C. No.
2:14-cv-01309-TSZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 6, 2017
Seattle, Washington
FILED
DEC 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
John C. Stiegler and Dwight A. Holmes (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal of their Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) claims. Wash. Rev.
Code § 19.86.020 et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing
de novo, Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2017)
(citing Ariz. Students’ Ass’n v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir.
2016)), we affirm.1
The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ CPA claims. Plaintiffs have
failed to allege facts plausibly establishing “that the public has an interest” in this
private dispute regarding internal corporate decision making. Hangman Ridge
Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531, 538 (Wash. 1986).
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims, which are “directed at the competence of and strategies
employed by” Defendants, are beyond the CPA’s scope. Michael v. Mosquera–Lacy,
200 P.3d 695, 699 (Wash. 2009) (quoting Ramos v. Arnold, 169 P.3d 482, 486 (Wash.
Ct. App. 2007)). Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to state a CPA claim.
AFFIRMED.
1 Because our decision does not rely on Wash. Rev. Code § 24.06.035, the
Motion to Strike, Dkt. No. 39, is denied as moot.
2

-- 2 of 2 --