Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03032/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03032-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laurie Marie Laskey
Plaintiff
Verizon Wireless Power Partners, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURIE MARIE LASKEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VERIZON WIRELESS POWER

PARTNERS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-03032 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

In this tort action, defendant Verizon Wireless Telecom, Inc. (erroneously sued herein as

“Verizon Power Partners, Inc.”) moves to dismiss. Plaintiff pro se Laurie Laskey’s form

complaint contains four causes of action: (1) general negligence; (2) intentional tort; (3)

premises liability; and (4) products liability. In support of her claims, the complaint states:

I’ve been attached to a Virtual Private Network without my

knowledge and hacked into. Information was not routed as

outlined in RFC1918. Verizon Wireless was attached to my

phone line.

The complaint goes on to include a premises liability claim stating:

I was connected to a faulty systems and it created a fault. I do

not know where their equipment is located.

The remaining excerpts of the complaint contain similar language. Defendant’s motion to

dismiss is GRANTED. Laskey’s complaint is entirely vague, ambiguous, and incomprehensible. 

Her opposition to this motion is much the same. Laskey will be given until October 14, 2008,

to file a motion for leave to amend. Any such motion should be accompanied by a proposed

Case 3:08-cv-03032-WHA Document 18 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\WHAALL\2008Civ\08-03032 Laskey\mtd.wpd 2

pleading and the motion should explain why the foregoing problems are overcome by the

proposed pleading. Failing such a motion, her claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The

hearing on this motion is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-03032-WHA Document 18 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 2