Karlene Petitt v. David Altman

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-35339
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARLENE K. PETITT, No. 23-35339

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01366-RSL

v. MEMORANDUM* DAVID B. ALTMAN,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Karlene K. Petitt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing as untimely her diversity action alleging a fraud claim under

Washington law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157

* 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). (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Petitt’s action because Petitt was on

notice of her claim more than three years before she filed this action. See Young v.

Savidge, 230 P.3d 222, 230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (explaining that Washington’s

three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims “accrues when the aggrieved party

discovers, or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, the fact of

fraud, and sustains some actual damage as a result”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of

allegations Petitt made in her previous lawsuit filed against defendant in 2017. See

Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2018)

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that a court may take judicial

notice of matters of public record).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitt’s post-

judgment motion because Petitt failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Petitt’s contention that the district

judge was biased against her.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-35339