Beck v. Catanzarite Law Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-1727
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUSTIN BECK, No. 24-1727 D.C. No. 3:22-cv-01616-AGS-DDL Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION; STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; RUBEN DURAN; SUZANNE GRANDT; RICHARD FRANCIS O'CONNOR, Jr.; JAMES DUFFY, AKA Jim Duffy; KENNETH J. CATANZARITE; JIM TRAVIS TICE, Attorney; NICOLE MARIE CATANZARITE WOODWARD; BRANDON WOODWARD; TIM JAMES O'KEEFE; AMY JEANETTE COOPER; CLIFF HIGGERSON; ELI DAVID MORGENSTERN; LEAH WILSON; ANTHONY B. SCUDDER; ELLIN DAVTYAN, General Counsel; ROBERT GEORGE RETANA; GEORGE S. CARDONA; JORGE NAVARETTE; JOHN C. GASTELUM; ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; MOHAMMED ZAKHIREH,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Andrew George Schopler, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Justin Beck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for

failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 his action alleging federal

and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006).

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Beck’s action because, despite an

opportunity to amend, Beck’s operative complaint failed to comply with Rule 8.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the 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).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further leave to

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 24-1727 amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of

review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would

be futile); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th

Cir. 2008) (explaining that “the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is

particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint” (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Beck’s contention that the district

court was biased against him.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-1727