22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4e8,MEMORANDUM Richard Maloney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his diversity action alleging state law claims of negligence and breach of oral contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Maloney’s action because Maloney failed to allege sufficient facts to show negligence or breach of contract. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”); Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 , 150 P.3d 228, 230 (2007) (elements of negligence claim under Arizona law); Chartone, Inc. v. Bernini, 207 Ariz. 162 , 83 P.3d 1103, 1111 (Ct.App.2004) (elements of breach of contract claim under Arizona law). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T51a,

MEMORANDUM

Richard Maloney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his diversity action alleging state law claims of negligence and breach of oral contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Maloney’s action because Maloney failed to allege sufficient facts to show negligence or breach of contract. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”); Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 , 150 P.3d 228, 230 (2007) (elements of negligence claim under Arizona law); Chartone, Inc. v. Bernini, 207 Ariz. 162 , 83 P.3d 1103, 1111 (Ct.App.2004) (elements of breach of contract claim under Arizona law).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.