Foster Taft v. Nabisco , 675 F. App'x 796 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 26 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    FOSTER TAFT,                                     No. 15-56218
    Plaintiff-Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02685-DSF-
    MRW
    v.
    NABISCO; et al.,                                 MEMORANDUM*
    Defendants-Appellees,
    and
    ALTRIA GROUP INC.; et al.,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 18, 2017**
    Before:       TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Foster Taft appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
    *
    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).
    diversity action alleging a strict liability claim. We have jurisdiction under 28
    U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule
    of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Ileto v. Glock Inc., 
    349 F.3d 1191
    , 1199 (9th Cir.
    2003). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Taft’s claims against defendants
    Mondelez International, Inc., Kraft Foods Group, Inc., and General Mills, Inc.,
    because Taft failed to allege facts sufficient to “state a claim that is plausible on its
    face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
    Twombly, 
    550 U.S. 544
    , 570 (2007)); see Barker v. Lull Eng’g Co., 
    573 P.2d 443
    ,
    446 (Cal. 1978) (product design is defective if “product has failed to perform as
    safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or
    reasonably foreseeable manner,” or (2) “the benefits of the challenged design do
    not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design”).
    We do not consider 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).
    Taft’s request to augment the record, filed on May 10, 2016, is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     15-56218
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-56218

Citation Numbers: 675 F. App'x 796

Judges: Trott, Tashima, Callahan

Filed Date: 1/26/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024