Victoria Gonzalez, on behalf of herself v. KINRO, INC., an Ohio corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTORIA GONZALEZ, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated and
ROBERT ROYALTY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
KINRO, INC., an Ohio corporation and
KINRO TEXAS LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Texas limited
partnership, DBA Better Bath
Components,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56815
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-08233-DDP-JWJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 9, 2012
Pasadena, California
FILED
JUN 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief District Judge for the U.S.**
District Court for Southern Iowa, sitting by designation.
2
Before: NOONAN and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER, Chief District
Judge.**
The plaintiffs in this class action appeal the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Kinro. We affirm the district court’s
conclusion that the plaintiffs lack standing to proceed.
An order granting or denying summary judgment is reviewed de novo, see
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir.
2009), as is a district court’s decision on standing, see Fair Hous. of Marin v.
Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 2002).
Standing under Article III of the Constitution requires an injury in fact. See
D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir. 2008)
(citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). Section 17204
of California’s Unfair Competition Law incorporates the federal injury in fact
standard. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204; Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
246 P.3d 877, 884-85 (Cal. 2011). To demonstrate an injury in fact, a plaintiff
must show the “invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” D’Lil,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
538 F.3d at 1036 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Here, the plaintiffs fail to show an injury in fact resulting from the alleged
non-compliance of their bathtubs with federal safety regulations. Of the 1.5
million bathtubs manufactured and sold by Kinro during the class period, none was
involved in a fire. Only named plaintiff Gonzalez incurred a cost to replace her
bathtub. The remaining plaintiffs have introduced no evidence to support the
conclusory allegation that their homes lost value due to this possible defect.
Without such evidence, they fail to show an injury in fact. The district court did
not err in dismissing their claim for lack of standing.
The grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --