LE’ELDRED PALM, Sr. v. Go Daddy.com, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LE’ELDRED PALM, Sr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GO DADDY.COM, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-15721
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02602-NVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Le’Eldred Palm, Sr. appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
FILED
OCT 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-15721 2
district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, see Williamson v. Gen.
Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000), we review for abuse of
discretion the denial of leave to amend, see Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian
Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a reconsideration motion, see Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
Palm attempted to allege claims in connection with agreements with
defendant regarding the leasing of numerous internet domain names. The single
issue Palm raised in his informal brief to this court is his contention that “my
complaint should have been filed as a diversity complaint not a federal question.”
We reject Palm’s contention on appeal because his amended complaint
alleged federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as well as
supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In
his amended complaint, he sought relief under both federal and state law, including
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, copyright infringement,
extortion, forgery, fraud, fraudulent concealment, gross negligence, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and wire fraud. The district court properly
dismissed Palm’s amended complaint because the complaint fails to plead facts
sufficient to establish that the defendant’s conduct constituted an actionable injury.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-15721 3
See Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir. 2008)
(conclusory allegations of law are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim).
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the
amended complaint with prejudice because it gave Palm sufficient opportunity to
amend his complaint and it was clear that the deficiencies could not be cured. See
Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Palm’s three
motions to reconsider because Palm failed to show cause justifying reconsideration.
See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County. 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth elements
for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --