# Boriga v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

> District Court, N.D. California · August 20, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10639205

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** August 20, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10639205

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 DIMITRY BORIGA, Case No. 24-cv-03500-PCP

8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
9 v. DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

10 COMCAST CABLE Re: Dkt. No. 11
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
11
Defendant.

12
13 Plaintiff Dimitry Boriga brings this action pro se against defendant Comcast Cable
14 Communications, LLC. In its entirety, Boriga’s complaint alleges:

15 After sixteen years with Comcast-Xfinity, they decided to get rid of
me last year 2023 I have a Year Contract for $30.00 per Month after
16 the Contract expires they raised the price from $30.00 to 80.00, I told
them I couldn't pay $80.00 I have to turn off the service, That double
17 every Month send: me a letter I have to Pay $256.00 it’s not mine bil
I don't have to Pay They sent the Bill to FICO Credit Scores and drop
18 my Credit with 100 points. I have a Trading Company Buy and Sell Futures Contracts at CME Chicago Board of
19 Trade I don't know why I lost in Business I use the best Software in
the Market. Thanks to Comcast Business I discovered today was a
20 poor connection I lost more than $ 150,000.00 It's a big difference
between Comcast’s underground rusty Connection and VERIZON on
21 air straight line.
22 Compl., Dkt. No. 1-2, at 5. Defendant removed this action from Santa Clara Superior Court and
23 now moves to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or
24 alternatively, for a more definite statement of the claim under Rule 12(e). Boriga did not file an
25 opposition to defendant’s motion.
26 For the reasons that follow, Boriga’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Borgia
27 shall file any amended complaint by no later than September 18, 2024.
1 ANALYSIS
2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain
3 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint that does not
4 state a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted can be dismissed under Federal Rule of
5 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
6 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable.” Ashcroft v.
7 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the complaint alleges fraud, the allegations are subject to
8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard.
9 While courts construe pleadings filed pro se more liberally than those drafted by lawyers,
10 see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007),
11 “dismissal is proper when the complaint does not make out a cognizable legal theory or does not
12 allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space
13 Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013).
14 Here, Boriga’s allegations, even when construed liberally, do not provide sufficient facts to
15 support any cognizable legal theory that would show that Boriga is entitled to relief or from which
16 the Court may infer that the defendant is liable. If Boriga chooses to file a first amended
17 complaint, he must specify the specific legal claims he intends to pursue and must allege facts that
18 demonstrate he is entitled to relief from the defendant on every claim.
19 CONCLUSION
20 For the reasons set forth above, Boriga’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
21 Boriga shall file any amended complaint by no later than September 18, 2024.
22 The Court informs Boriga that the Federal Pro Se Program at the San José Courthouse
23 provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se parties in federal civil cases.
24 The Program can help determine whether cases might be eligible for appointment of pro bono
25 counsel and can provide referrals to other legal services. Appointments can be made by calling
26 (408) 297-1480. More information is available online at cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersj.
27
1 IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 Dated: August 20, 2024
3 (Ag Ze
4
P. Casey Pitts
5 United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13

©
15
16

= 17

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10639205. Public record. Not legal advice.