Case Name: Mahmood YOONESSI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andre KHANSARI, LACBA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-18
Citations: 694 F. App'x 522
Docket Number: No. 16-56374
Parties: Mahmood YOONESSI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andre KHANSARI, LACBA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.