Andy Jang v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Andy Jang v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 12, 2018

Docket17-55757

StatusUnpublished

This text of Andy Jang v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc. (Andy Jang v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andy Jang v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc., (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDY JANG, on behalf of himself and No. 17-55757 others similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:15-cv-01067-JAK-PLA

v. MEMORANDUM* ASSET CAMPUS HOUSING, INC.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 10, 2018** Pasadena, California

Before: HURWITZ and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and PRESNELL,*** District Judge.

Andy Jang appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in 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). *** The Honorable Gregory A. Presnell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. putative class action alleging that a fee charged when he paid his rent using a credit

card violated California Civil Code § 1748.1. As the parties are familiar with the

facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm.

Jang argues that the district court erred in determining that section 1748.1, as

applied here, violated the First Amendment. However, this issue is controlled by

our intervening decision in Italian Colors Restaurant v. Becerra, 878 F.3d 1165,

1179 (9th Cir. 2018), which held that section 1748.1, as applied to those plaintiffs,

violated the First Amendment. Contrary to Jang’s contention, Italian Colors is not

distinguishable.

Because we affirm the district court’s summary judgment, we do not reach

Jang’s arguments concerning the denial of class certification. See Hodgers-Durgin

v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI