Opinion
No. 20-15453
01-25-2021
MARIE A. ARNOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METLIFE AUTO & HOME; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 5:19-cv-03920-VKD MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Virginia K. DeMarchi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Marie A. Arnold appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging state law claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Arnold's action because Arnold failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See id. at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Nat'l Ass'n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (when determining whether a plaintiff states a claim for relief, the court "may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint"); Carrera v. Maurice J. Sopp & Son, 99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 268, 276 (Ct. App. 2009) (elements of negligence claim); Apollo Cap. Fund, LLC v. Roth Cap. Partners, LLC, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 199, 213 (Ct. App. 2007) (elements of negligent misrepresentation claim); see also Pac. Rim Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Ins. Servs. W., Inc., 138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294, 297-98 (Ct. App. 2012) (discussing "limited duty" owed by insurance brokers).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Arnold's request to supplement her complaint because adding new defendants would not cure the pleading deficiencies and therefore would be futile. See Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for supplementing a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d)); see also Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.