Ellen Krikorian v. Bank of America, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELLEN KRIKORIAN, No. 21-16354

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02274-DWL v.

MEMORANDUM* BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., previously named Bank of America,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

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,

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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.

2 21-16354