Case Information
*1 Before: CLIFTON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges and LAMBERTH, [**] Senior District Judge.
*2
Kathleen Haskins appeals the district court’s dismissal of her Third Amended Complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not err in granting Symantec Corporation’s motion to
dismiss the UCL and CLRA claims. Because Haskins’s complaint did not allege
that she read and relied on a specific misrepresentation by Symantec, she failed to
plead her fraud claims with particularity as required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.
,
Haskins did not sufficiently allege breach of an implied contract because she
did not allege the conduct that formed the contract or the contract’s terms.
Similarly, she did not sufficiently plead money had and received because she did
not allege that Symantec received money intended to be used for her benefit.
See
Avidor v. Sutter’s Place, Inc.
,
AFFIRMED.
Notes
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[**] The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
