Cited by

Ctr., ¶ 26 (App. 2010) (stating a court does not err in denying a motion to amend if the amendment would be futile).

Ctr., ¶ 25 (App. 2010), but we consider de novo whether a request to amend is futile.

Ctr., ¶ 11 (App. 2010) (citation modified).

Ctr., –91, ¶¶ 15, 18 (App. 2010).

Ctr., ¶ 11 (App. 2010) (citation omitted).

Ctr., ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (quoting Gust, 182 Ariz. at 589).

“Our purpose in interpreting a contract is to ascertain and enforce the parties’ intent” for which we look “to the plain meaning of words as viewed in the context of the contract as a whole.” ELM Retirement Center, ¶ 15 (App. 2010).

Ctr., ¶¶ 10, 13 (App. 2010) (affirming Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of tort claims against seller who allegedly misrepresented square footage of house’s living space because complaint was filed “nearly four years after” the sale, “well beyond the applicable limitations periods,” and the complaint did “not allege facts” suf

¶ 18 (App. 2010) (quotation omitted).

v. Callaway, ¶ 18 (App. 2010) (cleaned up).

We do not construe terms “in a way that renders another meaningless.” ELM Retirement Center, ¶ 18 (App. 2010).

v. Callaway, ¶ 24 n.1 (App. 2010) (“Issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived.”).

Ctr., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (“[E]ven if a document is not attached to the complaint, if it is central to the claim, the court may consider it without converting a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.”).

Ctr., ¶ 5 (App. 2010) (stating that a motion to dismiss should only be granted if the plaintiffs are not “entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim” (citation omitted)).

Ctr., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (documents not attached to complaint may be considered if they are central to a claim, without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment).

Ctr., ¶ 18 (App. 2010) (“because specific contract provisions express the parties’ intent more precisely than general provisions, specific provisions qualify the meaning of general provisions”).

Ctr., ¶ 15 (App. 2010) (citation omitted).

Ctr., ¶ 26 (App. 2010)).

Ctr., ¶ 26 (App. 2010)).

ELM Retirement Ctr., ¶ 7 (App. 2010).

Cf. ELM Retirement Ctr., ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (explaining that plaintiffs are not permitted “to hide behind [their] ignorance when a reasonable investigation would have alerted [them] to the claim”).

Ctr., -91, ¶ 15 (App. 2010) (quoting United Cal.

See ELM Retirement Ctr., ¶ 15 (App. 2010).

Ctr., ¶ 12 (App. 2010), and the Gallardos alleged no facts from which the court could discern an issue relating to their reasonable diligence in investigating the identity of the defendants.

Ctr., ¶ 15 (App. 2010) (citation omitted).