*1 Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*2 Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) in connection with the labeling of a prescription drug. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Daniel v. Ford Motor Co. , 806 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Joseph’s UCL claims because Joseph failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he relied on the absence of a country of origin marking before purchasing atorvastatin from defendant Costco. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 (standing under the UCL requires plaintiff’s injury to occur “as a result of” defendant’s misconduct); Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court , 246 P.3d 877, 885-88 (Cal. 2011) (to bring a claim under the UCL, a plaintiff must have economic injury caused by the defendant’s unfair business practice); see also Daniel , 806 F.3d at 1225 (“To prove reliance on an omission, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s nondisclosure was an immediate cause of the plaintiff’s injury-producing conduct.”).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

[*] 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).