MEMORANDUM ***
Marie A. Arnold appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging state law claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Arnolds action because Arnold failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See id. at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Natl Assn for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (when determining whether a plaintiff states a claim for relief, the court “may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”); Carrera v. Maurice J. Sopp & Son, 177 Cal.App.4th 366, 99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 268, 276 (2009) (elements of negligence claim); Apollo Cap. Fund, LLC v. Roth Cap. Partners, LLC, 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 199, 213 (2007) (elements of negligent misrepresentation claim); see also Pac. Rim Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Ins. Servs. W., Inc., 203 Cal.App.4th 1278, 138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294, 297-98 (2012) (discussing “limited duty” owed by insurance brokers).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Arnolds request to supplement her complaint because adding new defendants would not cure the pleading deficiencies and therefore would be futile. See Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for supplementing a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d)); see also Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.