Love v. Tri Counties Bank

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-3540
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARY LOVE, No. 24-3540 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01761-TLN-CKD Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

TRI COUNTIES BANK,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Mary Love appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing her action

alleging federal and state law claims arising from her home equity loan with Tri

Counties Bank. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an

abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order.

* 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). Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Love’s action

because Love failed to comply with the district court’s order instructing her to

submit her discovery responses to Tri Counties Bank, despite being warned that

failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (factors to be

considered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in determining whether to

dismiss for failure to comply with a court order).

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 24-3540