HALEY DARIA V. SAPIENT CORP., No. 21-16480 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 20 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HALEY DARIA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-16480 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 3:21-cv-02712-WHA MEMORANDUM* SAPIENT CORP., acquirer of intellectual properties of World Wide Web Associates, a CA LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Haley Daria appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Daria’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Daria’s action because Daria failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Daria’s motions to file a supplemental reply brief (Docket Entry Nos. 46 and 47) are granted. Daria’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 51) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-16480

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.