Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0855-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PANCHOS CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Plaintiff-counterdefendant-Appellee, v. Guadalupe BEDOYA GONZALEZ; Ana Maria Josefina Bojalil Bedoya, Defendants-counterclaimants-Appellants, and Simon Lopez, an individual; Teatro Los Pinos, a business entity, Defendants.
    No. 07-56258.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
    Anthony R. Lopez, Esquire, Lopez & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-counterdefendant-Appellee.
    Andrew Kent, Esquire, Rincon Venture Law Group, Thousand Oaks, CA, for Defendants.
    Monica R. Molina, Esquire, Law Offices of Monica R. Molina, Gregory M. Salvato, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-counterclaimants-Appellants.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, counterclaimants’ request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guadalupe Bedoya Gonzalez and Ana Maria Josefina Bojalil Bedoya appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their counterclaim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 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), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the counterclaim because counterclaimants failed to comply fully with the court’s order to “proceed by default” after the court imposed less drastic sanctions and warned them that noncompliance would result in dismissal. See id. at 642 (listing factors that a district court must weigh before dismissing an action under Rule 41(b)).

We decline to consider whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the motions for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) because the issue was not argued on appeal. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003) (deeming abandoned issues raised but not argued on appeal).

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