Citations
- 697 F.3d 777
Full opinion text
ORDER
The opinion filed July 13, 2012, and reported at 687 F.3d 1132, is amended as follows:
At slip opinion page 8097, 687 F.3d at 1143, after the sentence , insert the following new footnote:
With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Fisher has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judges Noonan and Mueller so recommend.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed.R.App. P. 35.
Appellee’s petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, filed August 22, 2012, is DENIED.
No future petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.
OPINION
FISHER, Circuit Judge:
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) operated a customer rewards program, called Camel Cash, from 1991 to 2007. Under the terms of the program, RJR urged consumers to purchase Camel cigarettes, to save Camel Cash certificates included in packages of Camel cigarettes, to enroll in the program and, ultimately, to redeem their certificates for merchandise featured in catalogs distributed by RJR. The plaintiffs allege that, in reliance on RJR’s actions, they purchased Camel cigarettes, enrolled in the program and saved their certificates for future redemption. They allege that in 2006 RJR abruptly ceased accepting certificates for redemption, making the plaintiffs’ unredeemed certificates worthless. The plaintiffs brought this action for breach of contract, promissory estoppel and violation of two California consumer protection laws. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. We hold that the plaintiffs have adequately alleged claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, but affirm dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs appeal from a dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For purposes of a motion to dismiss, we accept all .well-pleaded allegations of material fact as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir.2010). We thus recite the facts as they appear in the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. This factual background is based on the allegations of the plaintiffs’ complaint. Whether the plaintiffs’ allegations are true has not been decided.
RJR initiated the Camel Cash customer loyalty program in 1991. Compl. ¶ 24. RJR represented on Camel Cash certificates, packages of Camel cigarettes and in the media that customers who saved the certificates — called C-Notes — could exchange them for merchandise according to terms provided in a catalog. Id. The C-Notes stated:
USE THIS NEW C-NOTE AND THE C-NOTES YOU’VE BEEN SAVING TO GET THE BEST GOODS CAMEL HAS TO OFFER. CALL 1-800-CAM-EL CASH (1800-266-3522) for a free catalog. Offer restricted to smokers 21 years of age or older. Value 1/1000 of l