Aparna Vashisht-Rota v. Bluechip Services

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, No. 23-55740 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00900-AGS-KSC v. MEMORANDUM* BLUECHIP SERVICES, (International), An India Private Limited Company; BLUECHIP SERVICES INTERNATIONAL CHENNAI, An India Private Limited Company; MOHAMMED HARISS; MUBEEN TAJ; HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Utah LLC; CHRIS HOWELL; JUSTIN SPENCER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Andrew G. Schopler, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 22, 2025** Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Aparna Vashisht-Rota appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment * 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). dismissing her diversity action alleging various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal for failure to prosecute). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Vashisht-Rota’s action without prejudice because Vashisht-Rota failed to serve defendants in India for over two years before the district court set a final 90-day deadline, and Vashisht-Rota failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to comply with that deadline. See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 640-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and explaining that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that this court may review the record independently if the district court does not make explicit findings to show its consideration of the factors). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vashisht-Rota’s motions to serve defendants in India by alternative methods because the court determined that Vashisht-Rota did not demonstrate diligent efforts to use Hague Convention procedures to effect service. See Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 2 23-55740 805-806 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) permits a variety of alternative methods of service, plaintiffs “must obtain prior court approval for the alternative method of serving process”). Vashisht-Rota’s motion to submit proof of service (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 23-55740