Arelious Reed v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 22, 2023

Docket22-55837

StatusUnpublished

This text of Arelious Reed v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Arelious Reed v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arelious Reed v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (9th Cir. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARELIOUS REED, No. 22-55837

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-07545-JVS-MRW

v. MEMORANDUM* WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., DBA Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023**

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

Arelious Reed appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging various federal and state law claims regarding an automobile

loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of

* 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). Civil Procedure. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Reed’s action

because, despite two opportunities to amend, Reed failed to allege the elements of

any claim or explain how any of his allegations related to any of his asserted

causes of action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring that a pleading contain “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief”).

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

reconsideration because Reed failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-55837

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARELIOUS REED, No. 22-55837

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-07545-JVS-MRW

v. MEMORANDUM* WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., DBA Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023**

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

Arelious Reed appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging various federal and state law claims regarding an automobile

loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of

* 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). Civil Procedure. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Reed’s action

because, despite two opportunities to amend, Reed failed to allege the elements of

any claim or explain how any of his allegations related to any of his asserted

causes of action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring that a pleading contain “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief”).

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

reconsideration because Reed failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-55837

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Mchenry v. Renne

84 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Arelious Reed v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arelious-reed-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-ca9-2023.