T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S AU L ME ND OZ A, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. L E HI GH S OU T HWE S T C E ME NT C O M P A N Y , A K A L e hi gh H a ns on H e i de l be r g C e m e ntG r oup, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 12- 16254 D. C . No . 5 : 1 1 - c v - 0 1 2 8 6 - L HK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L uc yH . K oh, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S au l M e n d o z aap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t in h is e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n a lle g in g , a m o n g o th e rth in g s , h a r a s s m e n t b a s e do n h is d is ab ility , r a c e a n d n a tio n a l o r ig in . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 

# FI LED OC T 04 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 16254 2 W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al for f ai l ure t o st at e acl ai m un der F e d e r a l R u le o f

C iv il P r o c e d u r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , W ood v . C i t

yof San D i ego , 678 F . 3d 1 0 7 5 , 1 0 8 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) , a n d f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n its d e c is io n w h e th e rto ap p lye q u itab le e s to p p e l o rto llin g , L eongv. P ot ter , 34 7 F . 3d 11 17 , 11 21 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y d i sm i ssed M en d o za’ s fed eral cl ai m s b ecau se M e n d o z af

a ile d to f ile atim e lyc o m p la in t w ith th e E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t O p p o rtu n ity C om m i ss i on (“ E E O C ”) , and h e f ai l ed t o d em on stra t e abasi s f or equi t abl e e st op pel o rto llin g . See 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 5( e ) ( s e tt i ng f orth the t i m e f

orf i l i ng ac om pl a i nt w ith E E O C u n d e rT itle V I I ) ; L e ong , 3 4 7 F .3 da t 1 1 2 3 ( d is c u s s in g th e r e q u ir e m e n ts f o re q u itab le e s to p p e l a n d to llin g ) ; see a l so 42 U . S . C . § 12117( a ) ( a dopt i ng 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-5 procedures f or cl ai m s und erthe A m er i cans w i th D i sabi l i t i es A c t ) . M or e ove r , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng M e n d o z a ’s r e q u e s t f

o rle a v e to a m e n dth e s e c la im s . See Ab a g n i n i n v . AM VA C Che m . C or

p. , 54 5 F . 3d 73 3, 74 2 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( se tt i ng forth st andard of revi ew a nd e xpl a i ni ng tha tl e a ve t o a m e nd m a ybe de ni e d i f a m e ndm e ntw oul d be f ut i l e or i f pre vi ou s am endm entfa i l ed t o cure defi ci enci es ). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by di sm i ss i ng M endo za ’ s new cl ai m s fo r “ P u n i sh m en t , M i sl ead , A cco m p l i sh m en t , an dN eg l i g en ce” b ecau se12- 16254 3 M e n d o z af

a ile d to s e e kle a v e to a d dth e s e c la im s . See F e d. R . C i v. P . 15( a ) ( 2) ( othe rtha n a m e ndi ng “ a s am a tt e rof c our s e , ” apl a i nt i f

f m a ya m e nd hi s c om pl a i nt

“ on l y w i th the op po si ng party’ s w ri tt en consentor the court ’ s l eave”) . M oreover, M e n d o z af

a ile d to s ta te c o g n iz ab le c la im s . See Jo h n so n v. R i versi de H ea l th ca re S ys . , LP , 534 F . 3d 1116, 1121- 22 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t“ aR ul e 12( b) ( 6) di s m i s s a l m a ybe ba s e d on e i the ra‘ l a c k of ac ogni z abl e l e ga l the ory ’ or‘ the abs e nc e of

s uf f i c i e ntf a c t s a l l e ge d unde rac ogni z abl e l e ga l the ory ’ ” ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) ) ; L add v. C ou nt y of Sa n Mateo , 9 1 1 P .2 d4 9 6 , 4 9 8 ( C a l. 1 9 9 6 ) ( e le m e n ts of a negl i gence cl ai m un der C al i forni a l aw ). M e ndoz a ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notc ons i de rhi s w orkre l at ed i nj uri es or pro se s t atus i s unp er suas i ve. AF F I RME D.