Girard v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 316 F. App'x 561 (9th Cir. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Girard v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 316 F. App'x 561 (9th Cir. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: SERRANO v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY (njd, 2025-03-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SERRANO v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY
D.N.J. · 2025 · confidence medium
Courts have applied the reasonable consumer standard to fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims because “justifiable reliance cannot be established if reasonable consumers would not rely on the purported misrepresentation.” Girard v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 316 F. App'x 561, 562 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Welk v. Beam Suntory Imp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Trammell v. KLN Enterprises, Inc. (2×)
S.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
See Weiss v. Trader Joe’s Co., 838 F. App’x 302 , 303 (9th 28 Cir. 2021) (affirming dismissal of warranty claims premised on the “exact same 1 representations as [the plaintiff’s] consumer protection claim”); Girard v. Toyota Motor 2 Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 316 F. App’x 561, 563 (9th Cir. 2008) (an “unjust enrichment claim 3 also fails” when a defendant’s “non-deceptive advertising does not entitle [the plaintiff] to 4 restitutionary relief” (citation omitted)). 5 Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s labeling is misleading because Defendant’s product 6 makes unambiguous cl…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation
N.D. Ill. · 2017 · confidence medium
See Bober, 246 F.3d at 943 (“[I]n the absence of any deception on the part of the defendants, the requisite violation of ‘fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience’ is not present.”); Girard v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 316 Fed.Appx. 561, 563 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the plaintiffs “unjust enrichment claim also fails since [the defendant’s] non-deceptive advertising does not entitle [the plaintiff] to restitutionary relief’); Hillen v. Blistex, Inc., 2017 WL 2868997 , at *4 (N.D.Ill.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ham v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 2014 · confidence medium
Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir.1995) (common law fraud claim requires showing that the advertisement would mislead a reasonable person); Girard v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 316 Fed.Appx. 561, 562 (9th Cir.2008) (equating “justifiable reliance” element of negligent misrepresentation to the “reasonable consumer” standard).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Krause-Pettai v. Unilever United States, Inc.
S.D. Cal. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Claims Subject to the Reasonable-Consumer Test 11 The first four causes of action—excepting the UCL’s unlawful prong—rise and fall 12 together, as they “are governed by the ‘reasonable consumer’ test.” See Williams v. Gerber 13 Products Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (CLRA, FAL, and UCL’s fraudulent 14 prong); see also Girard v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 316 F. App’x 561, 562 (9th Cir. 15 2008) (negligent misrepresentation).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Flores v. FCA US LLC
E.D. Mich. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Girard v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 316 Fed.Appx. 561, 563 (9th Cir. 2008); Kahn, 2019 WL 3955386 , at *8.” (Def.’s Br. at 16).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." OmegaGenesis Corp. v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research
D. Minnesota · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597 (Ct.App.1976) (citing Hefferan v. Freebairn, 34 Cal.2d 715, 719 , 214 P.2d 386 (1950)); see also Girard v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 316 Fed.Appx. 561, 563 (9th Cir.2008) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a negligent misrepresentation claim because a reasonable plaintiff could not rely on an alleged misrepresentation where the documents at issue included numerous disclaimers).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel GIRARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v.
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.
No. 07-56534.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 24, 2008.
316 F. App'x 561
Charles H. Cooper, Esquire, Rex H. Elliott, Esquire, Cooper & Elliott, LLC, Columbus, OH, Evan Jason Smith, Esquire, Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Thomas Riordan, Esquire, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Clifton, Graber, Reed.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

MEMORANDUM ***

Daniel Girard appeals from the district court’s order granting Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. We affirm.

Gmard’s claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test, requiring him to “show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 523 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotation omitted); Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 1351, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 22, 29 (2003). “The likely to be deceived standard requires a probability that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” People ex rel. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles v. Cars 4 Causes, 139 Cal.App.4th 1006, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 513, 521 (2006) (internal quotation omitted). Girard’s negligent misrepresentation claim likewise hinges on the reasonable consumer standard since justifiable reliance cannot be established if reasonable consumers would not rely on the purported misrepresentation. See Glen Holly Entm’t, Inc. v. [*563] Tektronix, Inc., 352 F.3d 367, 379 (9th Cir.2003).

The district court correctly determined that Girard’s allegations failed to state an UCL,[1] CLRA, or negligent misrepresentation claim because a reasonable consumer would not be misled by Toyota’s statements.[2] Each of the two-page documents at issue includes numerous eligibility disclaimers and recommendations to seek professional tax advice, which put readers on notice of hybrid tax credit restrictions. See Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289-90 (9th Cir.1995). As a result, reasonable consumers would not be deceived by the advertisements underlying each of Girard’s claims. See id.; see also Williams, 523 F.3d at 939 (noting that an “advertisement itself [can] ma[k]e it impossible for the plaintiff to prove that a reasonable consumer was likely to be deceived”).

Girard’s unjust enrichment claim also fails since Toyota’s non-deceptive advertising does not entitle him to restitutionary relief. See, e.g., Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 177, 188 (2007) (finding unjust enrichment claims based on the same facts failing to state an UCL claim must fail).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

We do not decide whether Girard lacks standing to sue under the UCL given his allegations fail to state a claim as a matter of law.

2

Girard cannot prevail under Rule 8 pleading standards, so it is not necessary to determine whether his claims must meet Rule 9(b) heightened pleading requirements.