Ellen Krikorian v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., previously named Bank of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELLEN KRIKORIAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., previously
named Bank of America,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-16354
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02274-DWL
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
MAR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16354
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 of 2 --