Lisa Kouball, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. Seaworld Parks and Entertainment, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LISA KOUBALL, on behalf of herself,
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SEAWORLD PARKS AND
ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-56069
D.C. No.
3:20-cv-00870-CAB-BGS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 20, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
FILED
OCT 25 2021
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Kouball alleges that she bought annual passes to SeaWorld San Diego on a
monthly payment plan. She alleges that when SeaWorld closed due to COVID, it
continued charging Kouball’s credit card, so Kouball brought this class action
lawsuit. The district court dismissed all her claims and Kouball appealed. Under
WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997), we have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393
F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
First, Kouball’s California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, and False Advertising Law claims were properly dismissed
because Kouball failed to allege actual reliance on any specific misrepresentation
made by SeaWorld. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 322 (2011);
Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC, 6 Cal. App. 5th 907, 916 (2016).
Second, Kouball’s breach of contract claim was properly dismissed because
Kouball failed sufficiently to allege the terms of the contract. Bustamante v. Intuit,
Inc., 141 Cal. App. 4th 199, 209 (2006).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Third, Kouball’s unjust enrichment claim was properly dismissed because
unjust enrichment is barred where a contract governs the dispute between the
parties and because Kouball did not allege sufficient specifics to set out her claim.
Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1350, 1370 (2010).
Finally, Kouball’s claim for money had and received was properly dismissed
because common count claims stand or fall with more specific claims, like unjust
enrichment, when the specific claims are based on the same facts and seek the
same recovery. McBride v. Boughton, 123 Cal. App. 4th 379, 394 (2004).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --