NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 6 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCTAVIO SANCHEZ, DBA Weedmenu, No. 22-55233 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:19-cv-00442-PSG-KES v. GHOST MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, MEMORANDUM * DBA Weedmaps, a Delaware limited liability company; VIRTUAL SUPPORT, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 5, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Octavio Sanchez appeals from the district court’s dismissal of Ghost Management Group, LLC from this action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

* 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).

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bonelli v. Grand Canyon Univ., 28 F.4th 948, 951 (9th Cir. 2022), and affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims alleged against Ghost Management in the second amended complaint. For the breach of contract claim, Sanchez failed to allege that Ghost Management opposed his future application for trademark registration. For the trademark and unfair business practices claims, Sanchez failed to allege sufficient facts to support his conclusory belief that Ghost Management was secretly acting in concert with Virtual Support to operate a competing website in 2018. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2011) (conclusory allegations, without supporting facts, do not state a claim that “is plausible on its face”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Sanchez cannot state a claim for trademark infringement, the district court properly dismissed the cancellation claims. See San Diego Cnty.

Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union, 65 F.4th 1012, 1037 (9th Cir. 2023) (cancellation of a trademark registration is merely a remedy for trademark infringement, not a separate cause of action).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice.

The court may deny leave to amend if amendment would be futile. Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1041. The court also has “particularly broad” discretion to deny leave to amend where a plaintiff has already had an opportunity to amend. Chodos v. W.

Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.