Cited by

“Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) only if ‘as a matter of law [ ] plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.’” ¶ 8 (2012) (quoting Fid.

–56 ¶¶ 7–8 (2012) (motion to dismiss); ¶ 29 (2015) (summary judgment); Lebaron Props., LLC v. Jeffrey S. Kaufman, Ltd., ¶ 6 (App. 2009) (interpretation of A.R.S.

This court reviews de novo an order dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim, ¶ 7 (2012), accepting “as true the facts alleged in the complaint,” Fidelity Sec., 191 Ariz. at 224 ¶ 4 (citing cases).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 When reviewing a dismissal pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “courts must assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts.” ¶ 9 (2012).

¶ 8 (2012) (Because questions of law are reviewed de novo, the grant of a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo.).

¶ 8 (2012); see also Danko v. Jackson, 1 CA-CV 23-0662, 2024 WL 2859439 at *5, ¶ 30 (Ariz. App. June 6, 2024) (mem.

¶ 9 (2012); Ariz. R. Civ.

We “assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts, but mere conclusory statements are insufficient.” ¶ 9 (2012).