MEMORANDUM **

Laurie Marie Laskey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action against Verizon Wireless Power Partners, Inc. for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Madison v. Graham, 316 F.3d 867, 869 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not err because the vague and incomprehensible allegations in Laskey’s complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining that vague allegations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where it has afforded plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend).

We do not consider Laskey’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007).

Laskey’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.