Kathleen M. Watson, as an individual v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KATHLEEN M. WATSON, as an
individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; BARTON M. WATSON,
as an individual,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-15890
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00400-LEK-KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Kathleen M. Watson and Barton M. Watson appeal from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from
* 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).
FILED
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-15890
defendant’s baggage policy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion a denial of leave to amend a complaint. See
Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Watson’s
complaint without leave to amend because the deficiencies of the complaint could
not be cured by amendment. See id. at 1200 (leave to amend may be denied where
amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in not converting defendant’s
motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment because the district court
did not rely on materials outside of the pleadings. See Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev.,
N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); Keams v.
Tempe Tech. Inst., Inc., 110 F.3d 44, 46 (9th Cir. 1997) (a motion to dismiss need
not be converted into a motion for summary judgment when nothing in the record
suggests reliance by the district court on materials that are outside of the
pleadings).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal, or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening
brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-15890
We reject as unsupported by the record the Watson’s contentions that the
district court applied the incorrect law regarding their breach of contract claim and
ignored claims related to the third class action members.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --