Ovitsky v. California Department of Fair Employment & Housing

Ninth Circuit

Ovitsky v. California Department of Fair Employment & Housing

594 F. App'x 424

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 27, 2015·No. 13-55221·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Abby Jo Ovitsky appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of standing, Canatella v. California, 304 F.3d 843, 852 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ovitsky’s claim for injunctive relief under the ADA because Ovitsky failed to allege a “real and immediate threat of repeated injury in the future.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946, 949 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

We do not consider, matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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

MEMORANDUM **

Abby Jo Ovitsky appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of standing, Canatella v. California, 304 F.3d 843, 852 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ovitsky’s claim for injunctive relief under the ADA because Ovitsky failed to allege a “real and immediate threat of repeated injury in the future.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946, 949 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

We do not consider, matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Ovitsky v. California Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 594 F. App'x 424 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

594 F. App'x 424 (Ovitsky v. California Department of Fair Employment & Housing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related