Arakji v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

── Arakji v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAZEN ARAKJI, No. 24-7785 D.C. No. 5:24-cv-02202-EJD Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.; AMAZON.COM, INC.; APPLE INC.; INTEL CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Mazen Arakji appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law employment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim * 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). under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 15 F.4th 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Arakji’s claims against Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Apple, Inc., and Intel Corporation because Arakji failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a complaint must contain sufficient factual content for the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged). The district court did not err in dropping Amazon because Arakji’s claims against Amazon did not arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants); Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (court may drop parties in case of misjoinder); Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc., 779 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review). The district court properly denied Arakji’s motions for partial summary judgment as moot in light of the dismissal. All pending motions and requests are denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 24-7785