Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0357-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YUNG LO, aka Agnes Lo, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ett GAMING; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15962.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 7, 2014.
    Yung Lo, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    
      Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yung Lo, AKA Agnes Lo, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002) (dismissal for failure to comply with court orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rules). We vacate and remand.

The district court dismissed Lo’s action because Lo failed to comply with the court’s order requiring her to file a Certificate of Interested Parties as required by the local rules. However, it appears that Local Rule 7.1-1 applies to counsel for private parties, not to pro se litigants. See D. Nev. R. 7.1-1 (“Unless otherwise ordered, in all cases except habeas corpus cases, counsel for private (non-governmental) parties shall identify in the disclosure statement required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1 all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships or corporations (including parent corporations) which have a direct, pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proeeed-ings, including for the court to determine if Local Rule 7.1-1 applies to Lo.

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