JEREMIAH BALIK V. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, No. 17-56066 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEREMIAH W. BALIK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-56066 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04906-GW-PLA v. MEMORANDUM* WALT DISNEY COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Jeremiah W. Balik appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Dominguez v. * 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). Balik’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Balik’s complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) because the allegations in the complaint were vague, confusing, and failed to connect Balik’s claims to defendants’ conduct. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (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, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that failed to set forth simple, concise and direct averments). We reject as without merit Balik’s contention that he was prejudiced by having Judge Wu preside over this matter. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim[.]”). We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 27, 29, and 43) are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 17-56066

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.