Laurie Marie Laskey v. Verizon Wireless Power Partners, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
tk/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAURIE MARIE LASKEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VERIZON WIRELESS POWER
PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17740
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-03032-WHA
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Laurie Marie Laskey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her diversity action against Verizon Wireless Power Partners, Inc. for
FILED
DEC 08 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

tk/Research 08-17740 2
failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Madison v. Graham, 316 F.3d 867, 869 (9th Cir. 2002). We
affirm.
The district court did not err because the vague and incomprehensible
allegations in Laskey’s complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)
(explaining that vague allegations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to
dismiss); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting
that the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad
where it has afforded plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend).
We do not consider Laskey’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007).
Laskey’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --