Ellen Krikorian v. Bank of America, N.A.

Ninth Circuit

Ellen Krikorian v. Bank of America, N.A.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 25, 2022

Docket21-16354

StatusUnpublished

This text of Ellen Krikorian v. Bank of America, N.A. (Ellen Krikorian v. Bank of America, 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

Ellen Krikorian v. Bank of America, N.A., (9th Cir. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELLEN KRIKORIAN, No. 21-16354

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02274-DWL

v. MEMORANDUM* BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., previously named Bank of America,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Ellen Krikorian appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

her diversity action alleging various 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,

* 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). Krikorian’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8); Cervantes v. United States,

330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Krikorian’s action because, despite

being granted multiple opportunities to amend, Krikorian’s operative third

amended 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); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996)

(complaint does not comport with Rule 8 if “one cannot determine who is being

sued, for what relief, and on what theory”).

Krikorian’s opposed motion for attorney’s fees (Docket Entry No. 11) is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-16354

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