
    Joel David JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-55742
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 31, 2017
    Joel David Joseph, Pro Se
    Kenneth K. Lee, Jenner & Block LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Kelly Morrison, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC, Dean N. Panos, Esquire, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Inc.
    Jacob Harper, Attorney, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jeffrey W. Kramer, Esquire, Attorney, Arvin Tseng, TroyGould PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Ralphs Grocery Company, Natures Best Distribution, LLC, Sun Ridge Farms, Inc.
    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). Joseph’s request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims arising out his purchase of cashew products without country of origin markings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp., 718 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Joseph’s claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) because Joseph failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he relied on the absence of a country of origin marking on defendants’ cashew products in making his purchases. 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. Super. Ct., 51 Cal.4th 310, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 246 P.3d 877, 885-88 (2011) (to establish standing to bring a UCL claim, a plaintiff must allege economic injury and reliance on defendant’s alleged misrepresentation).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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.
     