Court Opinion

ID: 9841239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 18:01:15.495849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:59.651869
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JENNIFER L.M. SENDZUL,                          No. 22-55508

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-06894-RGK-KS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JAY C. HOAG, an individual; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Jennifer L.M. Sendzul appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her copyright infringement action for failure to prosecute. 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). We affirm.

      *
             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).
      The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Sendzul’s action

when she failed to appear for the scheduling conference and then failed to appear

for the subsequent show cause hearing. See id. at 641-43 (discussing the factors to

be considered in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure

to comply with a court order, and stating this court may independently review the

record if the district court has not made explicit findings).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sendzul’s motion

for recusal because Sendzul failed to establish any basis for disqualification. See

United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891-92 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth

standard of review and circumstances requiring disqualification).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                  22-55508