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); Kwi kset 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.