Oscar Becerra; Julian Abraham v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Sidney H. Stein, District Judge for the U.S. District**
Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR BECERRA; JULIAN
ABRAHAM,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR
COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-56840
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01606-JAH-
POR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 4, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and STEIN, District Judge.**
Appellants, Oscar Becerra and Julian Abraham, appeal the dismissal of their
FILED
JUN 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm.
The viability of Becerra’s and Abraham’s case depends entirely on whether
or not Mexican law prohibits Mexican nationals from driving an American rental
car into Mexico. Although the district court gave them four opportunities--in the
form of amended complaints--adequately to allege and to demonstrate the viability
of this necessary legal proposition, they failed to do so. As such, Appellants’
causes of action that are dependent upon the foreign law violation fail to state a
claim that crosses “the line from conceivable to plausible.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 680 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Appellants also fail to state a claim regarding the insurance policy.
Assuming arguendo that Enterprise was Appellants’ insurance agent, Enterprise
was not negligent for failing to procure insurance for Appellants that would cover
legal issues in Mexico based upon Appellants’ request for insurance that would
“cover everything in Mexico.” See Jones v. Grewe, 234 Cal. Rptr. 717, 721 (Cal.
Ct. App. 1987). Enterprise did not conceal or misrepresent the terms of the policy,
which were written in both Spanish and English. Finally, Enterprise did not take
any action that frustrated Appellants’ rights under the policy.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --