Haley Daria v. Sapient Corp.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HALEY DARIA, No. 21-16480
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-02712-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SAPIENT CORP., acquirer of intellectual
properties of World Wide Web Associates, a
CA LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Haley Daria appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her
action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal
*
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). Daria’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Daria’s action because Daria failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “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)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Daria’s motions to file a supplemental reply brief (Docket Entry Nos. 46 and
47) are granted.
Daria’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 51) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-16480