Court Opinion

ID: 9785051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:01:33.838981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:04.080203
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 30 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HANH THI MY DO,                                 No. 22-55860

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 8:20-cv-02105-SPG-ADS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY; DOES,
1-20,

                Defendants-Appellees,

 v.

TWIN TOWN TREATMENT CENTERS
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY YORK
RISK SERVICES GROUP PMA
COMPANIES; et al.,

                Cross-defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                 Sherilyn Peace Garnett, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Hahn Thi My Do appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in her action alleging discrimination in connection with settlement offers following

an automobile collision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

      In her opening briefs, Do fails to address the district court’s summary

judgment orders and has therefore waived her challenge to the district court’s

summary judgment. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929

(9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued

in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.

1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are

waived).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     22-55860