Case ID: f-appx_441/html/0527-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kenneth R. MICKAS and Yasmina K. Mickas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-17150.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed July 6, 2011.
    Kenneth R. Mickas, Ignacio, CO, pro se.
    Yasmina Mickas, Ignacio, CO, pro se.
    Paul J. Giancola, Esquire, Martha E. Gibbs, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kenneth R. Mickas and Yasmina K. Mic-kas appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging fraud against their former insurance company. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the second amended complaint because plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to state a fraud claim on the basis of defendant’s alleged misrepresentations regarding plaintiffs’ cab company. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Edüd 868 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., 132 Ariz. 498, 647 P.2d 629, 631 (1982) (stating elements of fraud claim under Arizona law).

Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Plaintiffs’ “Objection to Notice of Appearance” and “Objection to Notice of Disassociation” are denied.

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