Cited by

Dismissal is appropriate when, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is not “entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” (quoting Fid.

plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” ¶ 8 (2012) (citation omitted).

¶ 9 (2012) (requiring the court to assume the truth of well-pleaded factual allegations).

¶23 When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court “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).

2 FARNSWORTH, et al. v. FLAGSTAFF, et al. Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶6 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when “as a matter of law [ ] plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” ¶ 8 (2012) (citation omitted).

See Aegis of Ariz., ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (standing); –56, ¶¶ 7–8 (2012) (dismissal).

See Aegis of Ariz., ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (standing); –56, ¶¶ 7–8 (2012) (dismissal).