Summary
holding “that a plaintiff must plead ‘actual reliance,’ even if their claim arises under the unlawful or unfair prongs, so long as the pleadings assert a cause of action grounded in misrepresentation or deception.”
Summary of this case from Kane v. Chobani, Inc.Opinion
No. 10-17237 D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02376-MHP No. 10-17239
12-30-2011
In re: ACTIMMUNE MARKETING LITIGATION, DEBORAH JANE JARRETT; NANCY ISENHOWER; JEFFREY H. FRANKEI ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; LINDA K. RYBKOSKI, Plaintiffs, and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. INTERMUNE INC.; W. SCOTT HARKONEN; GENENTECH INC., Defendants - Appellees, and CONNETICS CORPORATION; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., Defendants. In re: ACTIMMUNE MARKETING LITIGATION, DEBORAH JANE JARRETT; NANCY ISENHOWER; LINDA K. RYBKOSKI, MARL PERLMUTTER; LISA PERLMUTTER, Trustees of the Joan M. Stevens Trust, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and JEFFREY H. FRANKEL; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALT ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiffs, v. INTERMUNE INC.; W. SCOTT HARKONEN; GENENTECH INC., Defendants - Appellees, and CONNETICS CORPORATION; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., Defendants.,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 29, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.
The Honorable David A. Ezra, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Hawaii, sitting by designation.
--------
Deborah Jane Jarrett et. al., along with third-party payor Government Employees Health Association, Inc., appeal the district court's dismissal of their proposed nationwide class action suit against InterMune, Inc., Dr. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here.
We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in the district court's orders. See In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., 614 F.Supp.2d 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (Actimmune I); In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., No. C 08-02376 MHP, 2009 WL 3740648 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009) (Patel, J.) (Actimmune II ); In re Actimmune Marketing Litig., No. C 08-02376 MHP, 2010 WL 3463491 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010) (Patel, J.) (Actimmune III).
AFFIRMED.