Cited by

P. 12(b)(6); ¶ 7 (2012).

We “assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts,” ¶ 9 (2012), but will not accept as true “allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts,” Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211 Ariz.

To decide whether “a complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted, courts must 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).

P. 12(b)(6); ¶ 9 (2012) (Courts adjudicate Rule 12(b)(6) motions by looking only to the pleadings.).

¶ 7 (2012); Fidelity Sec.

–56, ¶¶ 7–9 (2012) (When considering an Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court assumes the truth of all well-pled factual allegations and only grants it if the non-moving party “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.”) (citation om

¶ 9 (2012); see also Ariz. R. Civ.

¶ 7 (2012).1 ¶7 This case is distinct from Boyd’s claim for damages for sexual assault against Loe, the State and the ADJC and this decision has no effect on his appeal pending in that case.

P. 12(b)(6); –56, ¶¶ 7–8 (2012).

at 286 ¶¶ 65–66; ¶ 31 (2012) (“Determining that tattooing is protected speech also implies that the business of tattooing is constitutionally protected.”).

DISCUSSION ¶8 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is only appropriate if, as a matter of law, the plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” ¶ 8 (2012) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION ¶10 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is only appropriate if, as a matter of law, the plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible to proof.” ¶ 8 (2012).

We review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, ¶ 7 (2012), unless the motion is granted because the nonmoving party failed to respond, in which case we review the superior court's decision for an abuse of discretion, Ariz. R. Civ.

¶15 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is only appropriate if, as a matter of law, the plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” ¶ 8 (2012) (citation omitted).

We assume the truth of all “well-pleaded allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts.” ¶ 9 (2012).