Marie A. Arnold v. Metlife Auto & Home;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIE A. ARNOLD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
METLIFE AUTO & HOME; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15453
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**
Submitted January 20, 2021***
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
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
* 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).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-15453
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)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-15453
(leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --