Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0522-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mahmood YOONESSI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andre KHANSARI, LACBA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56374
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 18, 2017
    Mahmood Yoonessi, Pro Se
    Jonathan M. Gordon, Esquire, Attorney, Evan W. Woolley, Attorney, Alston & Bird LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Alston and Bird Esq.
    James J. Moak, Esquire, Attorney, Allison Vana,' Esquire, Meserve, Mumper & Hughes LLP, Los Angéles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Prudential CMC
    Robert R. Yap, Attorney, Akerman LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees David Howerton, Citibank TIAA
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mahmood Yoonessi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Yoonesf s action with prejudice after weighing the pertinent factors and evaluating alternatives to dismissal. See id. at 1260-63 (setting forth factors for determining whether a pro se action should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Defendant Prudential Mortgage Capital Company, Now Known As PGIM Real Estate Finance, LLC.’s pending motion (Docket Entry No. 7) is granted.

Defendants Citibank TIAA and David Howerton’s pending motion (Docket Entry No. 17) is granted.

Yoonesi’s motion for leave to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 39) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 41.

Yoonesi’s remaining pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 6, 40, and 42) are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.