Court Opinion

ID: 9955888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 18:00:50.743554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:36.389370
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 29 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, No. 23-15654

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-02068-EMC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
NARAYAN TRAVELSTEAD
PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION;
TIMOTHY TRAVELSTEAD, in his
capabilities as a President of the Narayan
Travelstead Professional Law Corporation;
JULIE L. CHO, in her official and individual
capacities as an Associate Attorney of the
Narayan Travelstead Professional Law
Corporation; ALAMEDA HEALTH
SYSTEM,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                   Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, 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).
       Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

judgment on the pleadings. Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009).

We affirm.

       In her opening brief, Drevaleva failed to address the grounds for dismissal of

her action and has therefore waived any such challenge. See Indep. Towers of

Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we will

not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening

brief”).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Drevaleva’s

requests for leave to file post-judgment pleadings because the proposed filings

were within the scope of the pre-filing order. See Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d

467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard of review); West v. Procunier, 452 F.2d 645,

646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that an order refusing to authorize filing of

complaint was a “proper exercise of the district court’s authority to effectuate

compliance with its earlier order”).

       We reject as meritless Drevaleva’s contentions regarding personal

jurisdiction and that Judge Chen’s judgment was the result of fraud or criminal

conduct.

                                          2                                     23-15654
All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

                                 3             23-15654