Michael J. Brosnahan v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL J. BROSNAHAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15613
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-08277-DLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Michael J. Brosnahan appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his
action alleging, among other things, a claim under the Truth in Lending Act
(“TILA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
* 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
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15613
8. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brosnahan’s
TILA claim because the second amended complaint failed to comply with Rule
8(a)’s requirement of a short and plain statement of the claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .”);
McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing on
the basis of Rule 8 where the complaint was “argumentative, prolix, replete with
redundancy, and largely irrelevant”); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d
671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (dismissal under Rule 8 was proper where the complaint
was “verbose, confusing and conclusory”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --