Barton v. Walmart Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 22, 2025
Docket24-2649
StatusUnpublished

This text of Barton v. Walmart Inc. (Barton v. Walmart 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
Barton v. Walmart Inc., (9th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATHEN W. BARTON, No. 24-2649 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-05063-DGE Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

WALMART INC.; JOHN DOE, 1-10,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SHOUJING ZHOU,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2025**

Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Nathen W. Barton appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

* 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). judgment in his action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection

Act (“TCPA”), and Washington’s Consumer Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v.

County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants

because Barton failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

Walmart Inc.’s text messages about orders previously placed on its website

constituted “solicitations” within the meaning of the TCPA, see 47 U.S.C.

§ 227(a)(4) (defining “telephone solicitation” to mean “the initiation of a telephone

call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase . . . of . . . goods”), or

“commercial electronic text messages” within the meaning of the CEMA, see

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.010(3) (defining commercial electronic text message as

“an electronic text message sent to promote . . . goods . . . for sale”).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-2649

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

Related

Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego
670 F.3d 957 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Barton v. Walmart Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barton-v-walmart-inc-ca9-2025.