MEMORANDUM *

John C. Stiegler and Dwight A. Holmes (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of their Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) claims. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86,020 et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Ariz. Students’ Ass’n v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2016)), we affirm. 1

The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ CPA claims. Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts plausibly establishing “that the public has an interest” in this private dispute regarding internal corporate decision making. Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wash.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531, 538 (1986). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims, which are “directed at the competence of and strategies employed by” Defendants, are beyond the CPA’s scope. Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wash.2d 595, 200 P.3d 695, 699 (2009) (quoting Ramos v. Arnold, 141 Wash.App. 11, 169 P.3d 482, 486 (2007)). Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to state a CPA claim.

AFFIRMED.