Octavio Sanchez v. Ghost Management Group, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 6, 2023
• Docket: 22-55233
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 6 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OCTAVIO SANCHEZ, DBA Weedmenu, No. 22-55233

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:19-cv-00442-PSG-KES v.

GHOST MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, MEMORANDUM * DBA Weedmaps, a Delaware limited liability company; VIRTUAL SUPPORT, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 5, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Octavio Sanchez appeals from the district court’s dismissal of Ghost

Management Group, LLC from this action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bonelli v. Grand Canyon Univ., 28 F.4th 948,

951 (9th Cir. 2022), and affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims alleged against Ghost

Management in the second amended complaint. For the breach of contract claim,

Sanchez failed to allege that Ghost Management opposed his future application for

trademark registration. For the trademark and unfair business practices claims,

Sanchez failed to allege sufficient facts to support his conclusory belief that Ghost

Management was secretly acting in concert with Virtual Support to operate a

competing website in 2018. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656

F.3d 1034, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2011) (conclusory allegations, without supporting

facts, do not state a claim that “is plausible on its face”) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Because Sanchez cannot state a claim for trademark infringement, the

district court properly dismissed the cancellation claims. See San Diego Cnty.

Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union, 65 F.4th 1012, 1037 (9th Cir.

2023) (cancellation of a trademark registration is merely a remedy for trademark

infringement, not a separate cause of action).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice.

The court may deny leave to amend if amendment would be futile. Cervantes, 656

F.3d at 1041. The court also has “particularly broad” discretion to deny leave to

amend where a plaintiff has already had an opportunity to amend. Chodos v. W.

2 Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.