The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-55837•Arelious Reed v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., DBA Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.
22-55837Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 22, 2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARELIOUS REED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., DBA Wells
Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-55837
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-07545-JVS-MRW
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
AUG 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 22-55837
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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.