eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2023-08

Vien-Phuong Ho v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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