David Cooper v. Clark County, Nevada

MEMORANDUM

David Cooper challenges the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On a motion to dismiss, we “accept the plaintiffs’ allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to plaintiffs.” N.M. State Inv. Council v. Ernst & Young LLP, 641 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir.2002)). We “will hold a dismissal inappropriate unless the complaint fails to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).

Cooper has standing under Article III because he alleges that he has been improperly denied a license to which he claims he is legally entitled, and because he requests relief — the restoration of his right to obtain a business license — that a favorable decision would remedy. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-62 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). We affirm the district court’s dis missal of Cooper’s due process claim based on Clark County’s failure to issue or deny his license application in…