Storey v. amazon.com, Inc.

── Storey v. amazon.com, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TONNY STOREY, individually and on No. 25-2539 behalf of all others similarly situated; THE D.C. No. ESTATE OF TONNY STOREY, 2:23-cv-01529-KKE Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Kymberly K. Evanson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-Appellant the Estate of Tonny Storey seeks review of the district court’s orders dismissing with prejudice his claims against Defendant-Appellee * 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). Amazon.com for breach of contract and violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. We review a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss de novo. D’Augusta v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 117 F.4th 1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 2024). We review questions of state law de novo. Palm v. Los Angeles Dep’t of Water and Power, 889 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2018). We can affirm a dismissal for failure to state a claim “on any proper ground that is supported by the record.” Coronavirus Rep. v. Apple, Inc., 85 F.4th 948, 954 (9th Cir. 2023). 1. The district court properly dismissed the breach of contract claim for failure to state a claim. To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege (1) a valid contract, (2) a breach of duty arising under that contract, and (3) resulting damage. Nw. Indep. Forest Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 899 P.2d 6, 9 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). Washington follows the objective manifestation theory of contracts, where courts “determine the parties’ intent by focusing on the objective manifestations of the agreement, rather than on the unexpressed subjective intent of the parties.” Hearst Communications, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 115 P.3d 262, 267 (Wash. 2005). Thus, “the subjective intent of the parties is generally irrelevant if the intent can be determined from the actual words used.” Id. 2 25-2539  Storey’s complaint alleges that “[t]he Conditions of Use, Delivery Guarantees, and Guaranteed Delivery Terms and Conditions provide the terms of a contract or contracts under which the Plaintiff and Proposed Class members paid Amazon for a Guaranteed Delivery date and/or time.” The “Delivery Guarantees” page to which Storey’s Complaint points indicates that “[w]hen guaranteed delivery is available on an order, we’ll state this on the checkout page.” Storey concedes that his checkout page “did not contain the ‘guaranteed’ notation referenced.” Storey argues that the bullet-point list in Amazon’s Guaranteed Delivery Terms and Conditions sets forth eight exclusive elements required for guaranteed delivery. Storey points to this language as establishing the list’s exclusivity: “The following requirements must be met to qualify for a deliv