Hanh Do v. Arch Insurance Company

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 30, 2023
• Docket: 22-55860
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 30 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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