Case Name: Laurie Marie LASKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON WIRELESS POWER PARTNERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-08
Citations: 357 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 08-17740
Parties: Laurie Marie LASKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON WIRELESS POWER PARTNERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 138–138

Head Matter:
Laurie Marie LASKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON WIRELESS POWER PARTNERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-17740.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 8, 2009.
Laurie Marie Laskey, Cloverdale, CA, pro se.
Adam Friedenberg, Glynn & Finley, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.