Stacy Ritch; Gellert Dornay v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a Delaware corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STACY RITCH; GELLERT DORNAY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-35448
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05706-DGE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
David G. Estudillo, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 14, 2023
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, R. NELSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Stacy Ritch and Gellert Dornay (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the dismissal of their
putative class action alleging that American Honda Motor Co., Inc. made unlawful
recordings of their private communications in violation of the Washington Privacy
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
NOV 7 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Act (“WPA”). This case is one of five related diversity class actions,1 in which a
group of Washington residents allege that automobile manufacturers recorded and
intercepted their private text messages and call logs from their cellphones when they
connected the phones to their respective vehicle’s on-board infotainment system.
The cases are related because, although the class actions were brought against
separate automobile manufacturers, the factual background and legal issues are
virtually identical. In Jones v. Ford Motor Co., __ F.4th __, No. 22-35447, 2023
WL 7097365 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2023) (per curiam), we affirmed the district court’s
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and for the same reasons set out in Jones, we affirm.
We conclude, as in Jones, that the district court properly retained jurisdiction
to hear this case. See Jones, 2023 WL 7097365, at *2–3. Plaintiffs’ operative
complaint alleged that their vehicles’ infotainment systems download and
permanently store all text messages and call logs from Plaintiffs’ cellphones without
their consent. At the pleading stage, this alleged violation of a substantive privacy
right is sufficient to confer standing. In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig.,
956 F.3d 589, 598 (9th Cir. 2020).
1 The four related cases are Jones v. Ford Motor Co., __ F.4th __, No. 22-35447,
2023 WL 7097365 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2023) (per curiam); Dornay v. Volkswagen Grp.
of Am., Inc., No. 22-35451; Goussev v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 22-
35454; and McKee v. Gen. Motors Co., No. 22-35456.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We also conclude, as in Jones, that the district court properly dismissed the
merits of Plaintiffs’ claim under the WPA. See Jones, 2023 WL 7097365, at *3.
The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for failure to satisfy the
WPA’s statutory injury requirement. See WASH. REV. CODE § 9.73.060. To succeed
at the pleading stage of a WPA claim, a plaintiff must allege an injury to “his or her
business, his or her person, or his or her reputation.” Id. Contrary to Plaintiffs’
argument, a bare violation of the WPA is insufficient to satisfy the statutory injury
requirement.2 See Jones, 2023 WL 7097365, at *3.
AFFIRMED.
2 Because our injury determination dispositively resolves this case, we need not
address the district court’s alternative holding that the WPA does not extend liability
to manufacturing.

-- 3 of 3 --