Case Name: Christine BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSUNION LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-04
Citations: 316 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 08-15687
Parties: Christine BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSUNION LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 316
Pages: 594–594

Head Matter:
Christine BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSUNION LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-15687.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 4, 2009.
Christine Baker, Kingman, AZ, pro se.
Philip R. Wooten, Esquire, Daniel Jacob Steimel, Esquire, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Cynthia Fulton, Esquire, Fulton & Friedman PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, Howard Thomas Roberts, Jr., Esquire, Goering Roberts Rubin Brogna et ah, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Christine Baker appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and other federal and state laws, as a sanction for violating the court's confidentiality order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action with prejudice after weighing the pertinent factors and evaluating alternatives to dismissal. See id. (addressing factors to consider in determining whether a district court abused its discretion by dismissing an action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) or 41(b)).
Baker's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.