Ortal v. Fingel-Erickson
This text of 323 F. App'x 526 (Ortal v. Fingel-Erickson) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Teresita M. Ortal appeals pro se the district court’s Order denying her Motion for Reconsideration following the district court’s Order granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and Dismissing the Action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. Hicks v. Small, 69 F.3d 967, 969 (9th Cir.1995).
We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s Order granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and Dismissing the Action, filed on January 29, 2008, and the district court’s Order Denying the Motion for Reconsideration, filed on April 28, 2008.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
323 F. App'x 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortal-v-fingel-erickson-ca9-2009.