
    Oscar BECERRA; Julian Abraham, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-56840.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 4, 2013.
    Filed June 18, 2013.
    Alvin Gomez, Gomez Law Group, Del Mar, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jennifer J. Capabianco, Selman Breit-man, Melissa E. MacFarlane, Cooley Man-ion Jones Hake Kurowski LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and STEIN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Sidney H. Stein, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellants, Oscar Becerra and Julian Abraham, appeal the dismissal of their complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The viability of Becerra’s and Abraham’s case depends entirely on whether or not Mexican law prohibits Mexican nationals from driving an American rental car into Mexico. Although the district court gave them four opportunities — in the form of amended complaints — adequately to allege and to demonstrate the viability of this necessary legal proposition, they failed to do so. As such, Appellants’ causes of action that are dependent upon the foreign law violation fail to state a claim that crosses “the line from conceivable to plausible.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Appellants also fail to state a claim regarding the insurance policy. Assuming arguendo that Enterprise was Appellants’ insurance agent, Enterprise was not negligent for failing to procure insurance for Appellants that would cover legal issues in Mexico based upon Appellants’ request for insurance that would “cover everything in Mexico.” See Jones v. Grewe, 189 Cal.App.3d 950, 234 Cal.Rptr. 717, 721 (1987). Enterprise did not conceal or misrepresent the terms of the policy, which were written in both Spanish and English. Finally, Enterprise did not take any action that frustrated Appellants’ rights under the policy.

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