
    Christopher O’SHEA; Gisele Rogers; Jeff Adams, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EPSON AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; Epson Accessories, Inc., a California corporation; Seiko Epson Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-57105.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. B, 2013.
    Filed April 1, 2014.
    Catherine A. Conway, Esquire, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rex S. Heinke, Jessica Weisel, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, William Stoner, Esquire, Yuhl Stoner Carr LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Eric Francis Yuhl, Esquire, Yuhl Carr, Marina Del Rey, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Ryan Seth Goldstein, Shon Morgan, Valerie Roddy, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before; PREGERSON, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s partial summary judgment in favor of Epson America Inc., Epson Accessories, Inc., and Seiko Epson Corporation (collectively, “Epson”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment. SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1255 (9th Cir.2013). “Summary judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record.” Crowley v. Nev. ex rel. Nev. Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir.2012).

Plaintiffs allege that Epson failed to disclose material information about Epson inkjet printers and ink cartridges. On its website, Epson discloses that it tests ink cartridges in accordance with industry standards. The website also discloses detailed information about how Epson calculates its ink cartridge testing metric (ink yield) and states that no single standard duplicates a customer’s actual printer usage.

Under California law, a plaintiff alleging fraud by omission must establish actual reliance by demonstrating “that had the omitted information been disclosed, [he or she] would have been aware of it and behaved differently.” Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal.4th 1082, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 101, 858 P.2d 568, 574 (1993). Here, Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate actual reliance because none of the Plaintiffs read Epson’s disclosures

Because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate actual reliance, Plaintiffs’ omission-based claims fail.

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