v.
Crow Vote, LLC
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIDGET WARD; LISA WARD, on behalf No. 22-56108 of themselves and all persons similarly situated, D.C. No. 8:21-cv-01110-FWS-DFM Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MEMORANDUM* CROW VOTE, LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fred W. Slaughter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2024** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD, N.R. SMITH, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Bridget and Lisa Ward (collectively, “the Wards”) appeal from the district court’s orders: (1) granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellant Crow Vote, LLC; (2) denying class certification; and
* 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). (3) denying leave to amend. We review a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo. In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010). We review a district court’s order denying class certification or leave to amend for abuse of discretion. Parra v. Bashas’, Inc., 536 F.3d 975, 977 (9th Cir. 2008); Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
[*2]cash award for voting. They did not get a share of the Favorite Chef’s winnings either. They got nothing of the sort at all so the Favorite Chef voters did not obtain a “benefit” within section 13-3301(6)’s meaning. The Wards attempt to rescue their claims with their “gambling in concert theory.” Although that theory may be viable on some set of facts, it does not change our analysis here. The chefs and voters at issue did not work together to complete “one act” of gambling, as section 13-3301(6) requires. The voters voted and the chefs cooked. The chefs encouraged voters to vote for them, and the voters did in fact vote for the chefs. But the voters’ and chefs’ individual roles in the competition are not discrete parts of “one act” of gambling. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3301(6).
Because the Favorite Chef Competition does not amount to unlawful gambling under Arizona law, the Wards have failed to show a predicate offense sufficient to sustain their RICO and UCL claims. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment for Crow Vote on both of those claims.
[*3]sought to amend their complaint to add a claim for unjust enrichment. But the Wards are unable to recover for unjust enrichment under Arizona law because they received the benefit of their bargain. The Wards paid Crow Vote for Hero Votes, and the Wards received the votes for which they paid. The Wards got what they paid for and that is not unjust enrichment under Arizona law. See Brooks v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 548 P.2d 1166, 1171 (Ariz. 1976) (in banc).
AFFIRMED.
[*4]