
    Joel David JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, and Apotex Corporation, Defendant.
    No. 16-55370
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 31, 2017
    Joel David Joseph, Pro Se
    Cheryl Stephanie Chang, Esquire, Blank Rome LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Trenton H. Norris, Esquire, Attorney, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 plaintiffs injury to occur “as a result of’ defendant’s misconduct); Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 246 P.3d 877, 885-88 (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 plaintiffs 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.
     