Wood v. Eikenberry

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 2025

Docket24-4321

StatusUnpublished

This text of Wood v. Eikenberry (Wood v. Eikenberry) 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.

Bluebook

Wood v. Eikenberry, (9th Cir. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREA CLAIRE WOOD, No. 24-4321 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-00170-MMD- Plaintiff - Appellant, CLB v. MEMORANDUM* KEVIN EIKENBERRY; CLEMENT HOLDINGS; SGT INVESTMENTS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Andrea Claire Wood appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her diversity action related to property in California. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

* 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). dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. In re Phenylpropanolamine

(PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Wood’s action

because Wood failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause regarding

improper venue despite a warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal

of the action. See id. at 1227-29 (discussing the five factors to consider 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 24-4321

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREA CLAIRE WOOD, No. 24-4321 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-00170-MMD- Plaintiff - Appellant, CLB v. MEMORANDUM* KEVIN EIKENBERRY; CLEMENT HOLDINGS; SGT INVESTMENTS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Andrea Claire Wood appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her diversity action related to property in California. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

* 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). dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. In re Phenylpropanolamine

(PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Wood’s action

because Wood failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause regarding

improper venue despite a warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal

of the action. See id. at 1227-29 (discussing the five factors to consider 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 24-4321

Related

In Re Phenylpropanolamine (Ppa) Products Liability Litigation, Shantell Allen, on Behalf of Allen, Vera v. Bayer Corporation, Leon Anderson, Jr. v. Bayer Corporation, Leslie Ackel v. Bayer Corporation, Bridgett Arrington v. Bayer Corporation, Calvin McGriggs v. Delaco Company, Betty Clinton v. Delaco Company, Donna Sasseen v. Ide Interstate Inc., Elizabeth Page v. Bayer Corporation, Marie Riley v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Keva K. Alford, on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Henry Dexter, and Eddie Bullock v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Bobby Holmes v. Bayer Corporation, Melody McDaniel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Samantha Samuels v. Bayer Corporation

460 F.3d 1217 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wood v. Eikenberry, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-eikenberry-ca9-2025.