Case ID: f-appx_613/html/0654-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lorena FEE, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, a foreign corporation Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-15703.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 20, 2015.
    
    Filed Aug. 21, 2015.
    Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Law Office of Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Dora Lane,. Esquire, Holland & Hart LLP, Reno, NV, Krystal Joy Gallagher, Esquire, Holland & Hart LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lorena Fee appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm the district court’s order.

The district court properly dismissed Fee’s action because the facts that Fee alleged are conclusory and do not show that her eczema substantially limits her in a major life activity. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) (defining “disability”); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(ii) (defining “major life activities,” to include the “operation of a major bodily function”); see also Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, 763 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir.2014) (a disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual who claims the disability). The second amended complaint did not include allegations of fact that Fee’s condition prevents her skin from functioning.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.