Opinion
21-16354
03-25-2022
ELLEN KRIKORIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., previously named Bank of America, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for No. 2:20-cv-02274-DWL the District of Arizona Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Krikorian's request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
Ellen Krikorian appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8); Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Krikorian's action because, despite being granted multiple opportunities to amend, Krikorian's operative third amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (complaint does not comport with Rule 8 if "one cannot determine who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory").
Krikorian's opposed motion for attorney's fees (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied.
AFFIRMED.