Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0575-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YI TAI SHAO, AKA Linda Yi Tai Shao, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MCMANIS FAULKNER, LLP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-17063
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 7, 2016
    Yi Tai Shao, Pro Se
    Janet L. Everson, Attorney, Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, 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

Yi Tai Shao, AKA Linda Yi Tai Shao, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action alleging discrimination and state law claims in connection with a retainer agreement between Shao and defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations. Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shao’s § 1981 discrimination claim as time-barred because Shao failed to file her action within the applicable statute of limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Lukovsky, 535 F.3d at 1048 & n.2 (recognizing that actions cognizable under the pre-1990 version of § 1981 remain subject to forum state’s limitations period for personal injury torts).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Shao’s motion to disqualify the district court judge and the entire Northern District of California. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and standard for recusal).

We do not consider arguments or facts that were not presented to the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Shao’s contentions that the distinct court failed to rule on a motion to strike and failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 are unpersuasive.

Shao’s request for judicial notice, filed on October 8,2015, is denied.

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