Market Trading, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 072010 FED9, 09-55445

Docket Nº:09-55445
Party Name:MARKET TRADING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, a Delaware corporation, FKA Cingular Wireless LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:July 20, 2010
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

MARKET TRADING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, a Delaware corporation, FKA Cingular Wireless LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-55445

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 20, 2010

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted June 9, 2010 Seattle, Washington.

Appeal from the United States District Court No. 3:06-cv-01021-W-CAB for the Southern District of California Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding.

Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Plaintiff–Appellant Market Trading appeals from the district court's dismissal, with prejudice, of its amended class action complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The complaint alleged that Defendant–Appellee AT&T Mobility ("AT&T") breached its cell phone contract with Market Trading and violated California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Both claims are based on the allegation that, if Market Trading shifted from its present cell phone plan to one providing fewer monthly minutes of service, AT&T would not permit the transfer of all of the "rollover minutes" that Market Trading had accumulated under its present plan.1 According to the original complaint, Market Trading had accumulated some 10, 000 rollover minutes. We affirm the district court's judgment.

A. Standard of Review

We review the dismissal of the amended complaint de novo. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). In so doing, we "accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, " namely, Market Trading. Id. We do not ask for "detailed factual allegations, " but Market Trading must go beyond "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" and provide us the grounds of its entitlement to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, "[w]hile legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). Those factual allegations, "accepted as true, " must "'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570); accord Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).

B. The District Court Properly Dismissed the Amended Complaint

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP