Lee v. Trump et al

Filing 50

ORDER Granting 32 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/25/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

***
ROBIN M. LEE, an individual

10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:12-cv-00077-MMD-VCF
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.

(Def.’sMotion to Dismiss – dkt. no. 32)

DONALD TRUMP, an individual, and
TRUMP CORPORATION, a New York
Corporation,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

Before the Court is Defendants Donald Trump and Trump Corporation’s Motion to
Dismiss. (Dkt. no. 32.) For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted.

19

Plaintiff’s handwritten complaint is largely illegible and incoherent. From what the

20

Court can best surmise, Plaintiff alleges that the actions of Mr. Trump, in concert with a

21

number of other famous individuals not listed as defendants, precluded a lucrative

22

investment opportunity.

23

pardon.1

24
25

Plaintiff requests $21.5 billion in damages and a presidential

Defendants Donald Trump and Trump Corporation filed an impassioned and
thorough

to say the least

motion to dismiss on a number of procedural and

26
27
28

1

It also appears that Plaintiff may have pursued this case in the District of Hawaii, and
instigated the instant action only when that case was dismissed as frivolous.

1

substantive grounds. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion and consequently,

2

dismissal is proper under Local Rule 7-2(d). Additionally, dismissal is warranted on the

3

merits.

4

statement of a claim to relief with sufficient factual matter to support its plausibility. Bell

5

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). After reading the complaint, the

6

Court cannot ascertain what exactly the Plaintiff’s claim is and finds that the disjointed

7

facts do not rise to the level of plausibility. Therefore, the Motion is granted.

Dismissal is proper when a complaint does not contain a short and plain

8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Donald Trump and Trump

9

Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to

10

close this case.

11
12

DATED THIS 25th day of October 2012.

13
14
15

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2