Barton v. Walmart Inc.
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.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Barton v. Walmart Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barton-v-walmart-inc-ca9-2025.