Court Opinion

ID: 9375032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 18:00:58.254094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.382262
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSE ANN KARAM,                                 No.    22-15332
                Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00455-RCC
 v.
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA; SOUTHERN MEMORANDUM*
ARIZONA VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM; UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,
Davis Monthan Air Force Base; ARIZONA
BOARD OF REGENTS; BANNER
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER;
GENOA HEALTHCARE,
                Defendants-Appellees,
and
DAVID LAMB; et al.,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

      *
             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).
Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Rose Ann Karam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action alleging federal claims under section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”) and state law claims arising from her time as a pharmacy student at the

University of Arizona. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal for failure

to state a claim); Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 192 F.3d 807, 817 (9th Cir.

1999) (grant of summary judgment). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Karam’s state law claims because

Karam failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009) (a claim has facial plausibility when the

plaintiff pleads factual content allowing the reasonable inference that a defendant

is liable for the misconduct alleged; conclusory allegations are not entitled to the

presumption of truth); Huey v. Honeywell, Inc., 82 F.3d 327, 333 (9th Cir. 1997)

(setting forth the elements for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress

under Arizona law); Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement

Masons Loc. No. 395 Pension Tr. Fund, 38 P.3d 12, 36 (Ariz. 2002) (setting forth

the elements of civil conspiracy under Arizona law).

      The district court properly dismissed Karam’s disability discrimination and

                                           2                                    22-15332
retaliation claims against Southern Arizona Veterans Administration Health Care

System, United States Air Force, Davis Monthan Air Force Base, Banner

University Medical Center, and Genoa Healthcare because Karam failed to allege

facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See T.B. ex rel Brenneise v. San Diego

Unified Sch. Dist., 806 F.3d 451, 473 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a retaliation

claim under the ADA); Zukle v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1045

(9th Cir. 1999) (elements of a prima facie case under Title II of the ADA or the

RA). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Karam leave to

amend these claims. See Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 622 (9th

Cir. 2004) (“Where the plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint … the

district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.” (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted)).

      The district court properly granted summary judgment on Karam’s disability

discrimination claim against the Arizona Board of Regents because Karam failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was excluded from

participation in, or denied the benefits of, her educational program because of her

disability. See Zukle, 166 F.3d at 1045.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment on Karam’s

retaliation claim against the Arizona Board of Regents because Karam failed to

raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any adverse action occurred

                                           3                                    22-15332
because of protected activity. See Brenneise, 806 F.3d at 473 (setting forth the

elements of a retaliation claim under the ADA and explaining that the “more

stringent test” of but-for causation applies to such claims).

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

relating to the preservation of emails because Karam failed to show she was

prejudiced by the lack of such discovery. See Michelman v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.

Co., 685 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and stating

that “[a] district court abuses its discretion only if the party requesting a

continuance can show that allowing additional discovery would have precluded

summary judgment”).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Karam’s motion to file a supplemental opening brief (Docket Entry No. 27)

is granted. The Clerk will file the supplemental opening brief received on October

17, 2022. Karam’s motions for an extension of time to file reply brief and motion

to file reply brief (Docket Entry Nos. 50, 51, and 59) are granted. The Clerk will

file the reply briefs received at Docket Entry Nos. 53, 54, 55, and 60.

      All other pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            4                                     22-15332