Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Pro se plaintiff PING YIP loses against Hugs to Go

The pro se plaintiff lost:

The district court continued to find the complaints in-
adequate, for Yip did not describe, explain, or particularly
reference facts in her pleadings, despite the guidance of
the district court. In the second amended complaint Yip
did not plead facts to establish that Hugs to Go existed at
the time of the alleged acts or that Hugs to Go itself
engaged in infringing acts. Yip was afforded several
opportunities for correcting the deficiencies in the com-
plaint. We agree with the district court that, as twice
amended, Yip’s complaint still did not meet the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) as explained in Twombly.
Although we recognize the obstacles confronting a pro se
litigant, we conclude that the district dismissal were in accordance with law.


Post a Comment

<< Home