Branum v. Fry's Food Stores

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 6, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01608
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Luca Branum, No. CV-21-01608-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Fry's Food Stores,

13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court are Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a 17 claim (Doc. 7) and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 18). The Court grants the 18 motion to dismiss and denies leave to amend. 19 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain factual 20 allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. 21 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint fails this “if it tenders ‘naked 22 assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.” Gilmore v. DJO Inc., 663 F. Supp. 23 2d 856, 859 (D. Ariz. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)). Plaintiff’s complaint 24 alleges, in its entirety: “Business tried to prevent, entry, service on basis of disability, 25 medical condition preventing us from wearing masks.” (Doc. 1-3 at 12.) The complaint 26 makes no mention of the kind of medical condition that allegedly prevented mask wearing 27 or whether the business actually denied entry or service, or even the date on which the 28 incident(s) occurred. This lacks sufficient factual matter to place Defendant on notice of the alleged wrongdoing. 2 Leave to amend should be given freely “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. □□ 15(a)(2). When assessing the propriety of a motion for leave to amend, the court considers 4|| factors such as “(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) 5 || futility of amendment; and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” || Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990). Futility alone can justify 7\| denying leave to amend. Novak v. United States, 795 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2015). || Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint alleges no new facts that might cure the 9|| deficiencies present in the original complaint. Leave to amend is denied. 10 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED. 11 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (Doc. 18) is DENIED. 12|| If Plaintiff wishes, she may, by June 23, 2022, file a new motion for leave to amend in || compliance with Local Rule 15.1.! 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if no motion for leave to amend is filed by |} June 23, 2022, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this case without further 16 || order. 17 Dated this 3rd day of June, 2022. 18 19 20 {Z, 21 _- Ae 22 Upited States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 | Local rules are accessible at the following URL: https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/local-rules. _2-