Bridget Ward v. Crow Vote, LLC, 22-56108

Plaintiffs Bridget and Lisa Ward sued Crow Vote, LLC, relating to the operation of the Favorite Chef Competition.
The Wards contended that the contest amounted to unlawful gambling under Arizona law and sought relief under RICO and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
The district court granted summary judgment to Crow Vote on all claims, denied class certification, and denied the Wards leave to amend their complaint.
The Wards appealed, challenging the summary judgment ruling, the denial of class certification, and the refusal to allow amendment.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and the latter two orders for abuse of discretion.
The appeals court affirmed all district court decisions, finding the contest was not unlawful gambling and amendment would be futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
RICO/UCL Predicate	Crow Vote ran illegal gambling as the predicate for RICO and UCL claims	The competition was not gambling; voters got no benefit or share of prizes	No predicate offense, summary judgment affirmed
Class Certification	Class certification should be granted	No remaining viable claims; class certification is moot	Denied as moot after summary judgment
Leave to Amend	Sought to amend complaint to add unjust enrichment claim	Amendment would be futile; transaction was fair exchange	Denied; amendment futile under Arizona law

In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376 (9th Cir. 2010) (sets standard for reviewing summary judgment de novo)
Parra v. Bashas’, Inc., 536 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2008) (addresses abuse of discretion standard for class certification denial)
Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (sets standard for review of denial of leave to amend)
Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353 (9th Cir. 2005) (explains requirement of predicate offense for RICO)