Court Opinion

ID: 9556762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 17:00:55.012527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:56.975688
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VIEN-PHUONG THI HO,                             No.    21-55671

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-10532-ODW-JPR

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, DBA
Mr. Cooper; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Vien-Phuong Thi Ho appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims related to debt

collection. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Pickern v.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

       The district court properly dismissed Ho’s action because Ho failed to

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim and failed to comply with the

requirements of Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a pleading must contain “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that a pleader is entitled to relief”);

Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (a complaint

that is “verbose, confusing and conclusory” violates Rule 8); see also Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (complaint must contain more than bare

assertions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim; it must contain

sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ho’s motion for

relief from judgment because Ho failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63

(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

       Ho’s request to strike the answering brief, set forth in her reply brief, is

denied.

       AFFIRMED.

                                             2                                     21-55671