Cited by

¶14 Dismissal under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is proper if, “assum[ing] the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulg[ing] all reasonable inferences from those facts,” plaintiffs nevertheless “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” ¶¶ 8–9 (2012) (citation omitted).

¶7 (2012); ¶ 7 (App. 2008) (citations omitted).

Reviewing the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim de novo as an issue of law, –56 ¶ 7 (2012), for the reasons below we affirm the trial court’s ruling on the first ground and therefore do not address laches.

¶ 8 (2012).2 A. Ibeabuchi failed to comply with A.R.S.

¶ 8 (2012) (quotation omitted); see Ariz. R. Civ.

DISCUSSION ¶3 We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b), ¶ 7 (2012), and assume the plaintiff's alleged facts are true, Fidelity Sec.

¶21 In support, to argue that custom-made works for weddings and the stationery business constitute pure speech, and thus Section 18-4(B) is only constitutional if it survives strict scrutiny.

Coleman v. City of Mesa , , 363, ¶ 43, , 874 (2012).

¶4 Generally, we review the superior court’s dismissal of a complaint de novo, ¶ 7 (2012), assuming the truth of, and indulging all reasonable inferences from, the well-pled factual allegations, Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins.

¶ 9 (2012) (recognizing that public records regarding matters referenced in a complaint are not “outside the pleading,” and courts may consider such documents without converting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment (citing Strategic Dev.

Coleman v. City of Mesa , , 355-56, ¶¶ 7-8, , 866-67 (2012).