Case ID: f-appx_594/html/0424-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abby Jo OVITSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING, Defendant, and K12.Com, dba California Virtual Academy, dba Cava, dba Delaware K12, Inc., dba K12, Inc., dba Washington Virtual Academy, in Washington State, dba WAVA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-55221.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 27, 2015.
    Abby Jo Ovitsky, Aloha, OR, pro se.
    Michael Eric Hersher, Esquire, Deputy General Counsel, Andrew G. Minney, Esquire, Paul Christian Minney, Esquire, Young, Minney & Corr, LLP, Sacramento, CA, Sara Ugaz, Deputy City, Office of the City Attorney, Jerid R. Maybaum, Esquire Jane E. Randolph, Jacks & Maybaum LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jennifer Gysler, Monroy, Averbuck and Gysler, Westlake Village, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, the requests for oral argument are denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Abby Jo Ovitsky appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of standing, Canatella v. California, 304 F.3d 843, 852 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ovitsky’s claim for injunctive relief under the ADA because Ovitsky failed to allege a “real and immediate threat of repeated injury in the future.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946, 949 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

We do not consider, matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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