Case ID: br_436/html/0798-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of: Alexis Mager LAKUSTA, Debtor, Alexis Mager Lakusta, Appellant, v. Mark H. Evans; et al., Appellees.
    No. 08-15328.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 20, 2010.
    Alexis Mager Lakusta, Menlo Park, CA, pro se.
    Kathleen J. Moorhead, Esquire, Walnut Creek, CA, James Roberts, Roberts & El-iott, LLP, San Jose, CA, for Appellee.
    David Duperrault, and Silicon Valley Law Group, San Jose, CA, pro se.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alexis Mager Lakusta appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to compel abandonment of certain legal claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action because Lakusta failed to file his opening brief after the district court had previously explored less drastic alternatives and warned Lakusta that failure to comply with the court’s orders would result in dismissal. See id. at 642 (outlining factors to consider before dismissing a claim for failure to prosecute).

Lakusta’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Evans’s request for sanctions is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.