Boriga v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DIMITRY BORIGA, Case No. 24-cv-03500-PCP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 10 COMCAST CABLE Re: Dkt. No. 11 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant.

13 Plaintiff Dimitry Boriga brings this action pro se against defendant Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. In its entirety, Boriga’s complaint alleges: 15 After sixteen years with Comcast-Xfinity, they decided to get rid of me last year 2023 I have a Year Contract for $30.00 per Month after 16 the Contract expires they raised the price from $30.00 to 80.00, I told them I couldn't pay $80.00 I have to turn off the service, That double 17 every Month send: me a letter I have to Pay $256.00 it’s not mine bil I don't have to Pay They sent the Bill to FICO Credit Scores and drop 18 my Credit with 100 points. I have a Trading Company <DIMBORG INT> Buy and Sell Futures Contracts at CME Chicago Board of 19 Trade I don't know why I lost in Business I use the best Software in the Market. Thanks to Comcast Business I discovered today was a 20 poor connection I lost more than $ 150,000.00 It's a big difference between Comcast’s underground rusty Connection and VERIZON on 21 air straight line.

22 Compl., Dkt. No. 1-2, at 5. Defendant removed this action from Santa Clara Superior Court and now moves to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or alternatively, for a more definite statement of the claim under Rule 12(e). Boriga did not file an opposition to defendant’s motion.

26 For the reasons that follow, Boriga’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Borgia shall file any amended complaint by no later than September 18, 2024.

1 ANALYSIS 2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint that does not state a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted can be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the complaint alleges fraud, the allegations are subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard.

9 While courts construe pleadings filed pro se more liberally than those drafted by lawyers, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007), “dismissal is proper when the complaint does not make out a cognizable legal theory or does not allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013).

14 Here, Boriga’s allegations, even when construed liberally, do not provide sufficient facts to support any cognizable legal theory that would show that Boriga is entitled to relief or from which the Court may infer that the defendant is liable. If Boriga chooses to file a first amended complaint, he must specify the specific legal claims he intends to pursue and must allege facts that demonstrate he is entitled to relief from the defendant on every claim.

19 CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons set forth above, Boriga’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

21 Boriga shall file any amended complaint by no later than September 18, 2024.

22 The Court informs Boriga that the Federal Pro Se Program at the San José Courthouse provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se parties in federal civil cases.

24 The Program can help determine whether cases might be eligible for appointment of pro bono counsel and can provide referrals to other legal services. Appointments can be made by calling (408) 297-1480. More information is available online at cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersj.

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Dated: August 20, 2024 3 (Ag Ze P. Casey Pitts 5 United States District Judge

© = 17 Z 18