*1 Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*2 William H. Gilliam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging Lanham Act and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gi lliam’s Lanham Act false advertising claim because Gilliam failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); Ariix, LLC v. NutriSearch Corp. , 985 F.3d 1107, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2021) (defining false advertising claim under Lanham Act and setting forth required elements of “ commercial advertising or promotion ” for such a claim).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 20-15308

[*] 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). Gilliam’s request for oral argument, set forth in his briefs, is denied.