Foster Taft v. Nabisco

Ninth Circuit

Foster Taft v. Nabisco

675 F. App'x 796

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2017

Docket15-56218

StatusUnpublished

This text of 675 F. App'x 796 (Foster Taft v. Nabisco) 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

Foster Taft v. Nabisco, 675 F. App'x 796 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Foster Taft appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)); see Barker v. Lull Eng’g Co., 20 Cal.3d 413, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443, 446 (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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Foster Taft appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)); see Barker v. Lull Eng’g Co., 20 Cal.3d 413, 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443, 446 (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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 F. App'x 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-taft-v-nabisco-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack