William Gilliam v. Mike Galvin
This text of William Gilliam v. Mike Galvin (William Gilliam v. Mike Galvin) 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM H. GILLIAM, No. 20-15308
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00127-JAO-RT
v. MEMORANDUM* MIKE GALVIN, AKA J. Michael Galvin; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
AIRBNB, INC.; AIRBNB PAYMENTS, INC.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
* 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). Gilliam’s request for oral argument, set forth in his briefs, is denied. William H. Gilliam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging Lanham Act and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gilliam’s Lanham Act false advertising
claim because Gilliam failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); Ariix, LLC v. NutriSearch Corp., 985 F.3d 1107,
1114-15 (9th Cir. 2021) (defining false advertising claim under Lanham Act and
setting forth required elements of “commercial advertising or promotion” for such
a claim).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-15308
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
William Gilliam v. Mike Galvin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-gilliam-v-mike-galvin-ca9-2021.