Patrick BERRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEBLOYALTY.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; Movietickets.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees, 517 F. App'x 581

MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Patrick Berry appeals the district court’s dismissal of his suit for failure to state a claim against Webloyalty.com and Movietickets.com. We vacate and remand because Berry lacks

Article III standing. “To invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” Berry “must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by

Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). To have constitutional standing under

Article III, a party must demonstrate an injury in fact that is traceable to the challenged action and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). At the motion to dismiss stage, we accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the nonmov-ing party’s favor. Ass’n for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v.

Cnty. of L.A, 648 F.3d 986, 991 (9th Cir.2011). “[Bjecause issues of constitutional standing are jurisdictional, they must be addressed whenever raised.” Pershing Park Villas Homeowners Ass’n v. United Pacific Ins. Co., 219 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir.2000). Berry has alleged no injury in fact sufficient to support

Article III standing. The record reveals Berry was fully compensated by Webloyalty.com for the $36.00 charged against his debit card. The $1.00 charge appearing in his account history is clearly marked as a debit card authorization rather than as an actual charge. Berry has not shown that he incurred any other injury as a result of defendants’ actions. Because we hold that Berry lacks standing, we do not reach his other contentions. We “vacate the district court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.” Fleck & Assocs. v. Phoenix, City of, 471 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir.2006).

VACATED, and REMANDED with instructions. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.