Cited by

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

We review de novo the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, ¶ 7 (2012), and find that the trial court properly disposed of Pearce’s nonviable complaint.

ANALYSIS ¶10 We review de novo a superior court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.4 ¶ 9 (2012).

See Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (finding the trial court “necessarily considered matters outside the pleadings” when exhibits were attached to the motion and arguments at a hearing were based on the exhibits) ( ¶ 9 (2012)); Canyon del Rio Inv’rs, ¶ 15 (App. 2011) (converting motion because exhibits were not stricken) ( ¶ 6 (App. 2008); ¶ 7 (App. 2008)).

¶ 9 (2012) (“If ‘matters outside the pleading’ are considered, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment.”).

¶ 6 , (appellate court reviews de novo interpretation of a statute) (citation omitted); ¶ 7 , (dismissal of complaint reviewed de novo) (citations omitted).

This rule applied even when the personal 5-56, ¶¶ 7-8, -67 (2012) (appellate court reviews a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo and will affirm only if plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof; appellate court reviews issues of law de novo) (citations and quotations omitted).

On review, therefore, we “assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations” in the City’s pleading and “indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts.” ¶ 9, see also Watts v. Medicis Pharm.

DISCUSSION 115 Dismissal under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is proper “only if ‘as a matter of law [ ] plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.’ ” ¶ 8 , (citation omitted and alteration in original).