Tatyana Drevaleva v. Narayan Travelstead Professional Law Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-15654
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, No. 23-15654

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-02068-EMC

v. MEMORANDUM* NARAYAN TRAVELSTEAD PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION; TIMOTHY TRAVELSTEAD, in his capabilities as a President of the Narayan Travelstead Professional Law Corporation; JULIE L. CHO, in her official and individual capacities as an Associate Attorney of the Narayan Travelstead Professional Law Corporation; ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, 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). Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

judgment on the pleadings. Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009).

We affirm.

In her opening brief, Drevaleva failed to address the grounds for dismissal of

her action and has therefore waived any such challenge. See Indep. Towers of

Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we will

not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening

brief”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Drevaleva’s

requests for leave to file post-judgment pleadings because the proposed filings

were within the scope of the pre-filing order. See Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d

467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard of review); West v. Procunier, 452 F.2d 645,

646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that an order refusing to authorize filing of

complaint was a “proper exercise of the district court’s authority to effectuate

compliance with its earlier order”).

We reject as meritless Drevaleva’s contentions regarding personal

jurisdiction and that Judge Chen’s judgment was the result of fraud or criminal

conduct.

2 23-15654 All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 23-15654