Diosdado v. Huntington Beach Union High School District

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 11, 2026
Docket25-299
StatusUnpublished

This text of Diosdado v. Huntington Beach Union High School District (Diosdado v. Huntington Beach Union High School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Diosdado v. Huntington Beach Union High School District, (9th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MONIQUE KRISTEN DIOSDADO, on No. 25-299 behalf of S. D., D.C. No. 8:24-cv-02490-FLA-KES Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v.

HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2026**

Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Monique Kristen Diosdado appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying her motion to represent her minor child in this action. We review de novo.

Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm the

* 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). district court’s order denying Diosdado’s motion. See Grizzell v. San Elijo

Elementary Sch., 110 F.4th 1177, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2024) (explaining that under

this circuit’s binding precedent, a non-attorney parent or guardian cannot bring an

action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer), cert. denied, 145 S.

Ct. 2701 (2025); see also Herrera v. City of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th

Cir. 2019) (a district court order may be considered final for purposes of appellate

jurisdiction where its result puts the appellant “effectively out of court”).

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

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-299

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Padgett v. Wright
587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
William Herrera v. City of Palmdale
918 F.3d 1037 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)
Johns v. County of San Diego
114 F.3d 874 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
La Dell Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary School
110 F.4th 1177 (Ninth Circuit, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Diosdado v. Huntington Beach Union High School District, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diosdado-v-huntington-beach-union-high-school-district-ca9-2026.