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  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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