Cited by

¶ 4 (App. 2019) ( ¶ 7 (2012)).

BACKGROUND ¶2 In reciting the backdrop to the issues here, we “assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations” in the amended complaint and “indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts.” ¶ 9 (2012).

¶19 A motion to dismiss should be granted “only if as a matter of law plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” Conklin, 245 Ariz. at 504, ¶ 7 ( ¶ 8 (2012)).

Co., ¶ 4 (App. 2019) ( ¶ 9 (2012)).

“In determining if 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).

Co., (statutory interpretation); ¶ 7 (2012) (motion to dismiss).

DISCUSSION ¶6 The superior court’s ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo, -56, ¶ 7 (2012), and the motion is granted if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.