Helena Krizek v. the Queen's Medical Center

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 18 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELENA KRIZEK, Birth Mother of No. 23-15026 Bianca Helen Krizek (Decedent), D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 1:18-cv-00293-JMS-WRP v. MEMORANDUM* THE QUEEN’S MEDICAL CENTER; WENDY W. HSU, official and individual capacity; HAO CHIH HO, official and individual capacity; HAWAII RESIDENCY PROGRAM, (HRP); NOBUHIRO ARIYOSHI, official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and ITTIKORN SPANUCHART, official and individual capacity; CHRISTOPHER HAPPY, official and individual capacity; HAWAII CORONER; CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; T. SCOTT GALLACHER, official and individual capacity; MATTHEW DUMOUCHEL, official and individual capacity, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 18, 2024** San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Helena Krizek appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of her motion for a new trial in a wrongful death action that proceeded against Dr. Wendy W. Hsu, Dr. Hao Chih Ho, Dr. Nobuhiro Ariyoshi, The Queen’s Medical Center, and Hawaii Residency Programs, Inc. (collectively, “Appellees”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Appellees request dismissal of this appeal because Krizek’s briefing does not cite to the record and is therefore noncompliant with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6), (a)(8)(A). See, e.g., Han v. Stanford Univ., 210 F.3d 1038, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2000). Because Krizek appeals pro se, we reject this request. See Lim v. I.N.S., ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 23-15026 224 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2000); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 698–99 (9th Cir. 1988). We decline to consider Krizek’s sole argument, made for the first time on appeal, that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a new trial because it improperly excused Dr. Ariyoshi from appearing at trial. By failing to raise this argument in the district court, she waived her objection. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); see also Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the record does not support Krizek’s contention. It shows that she declined an opportunity to investigate the asserted reasons for Dr. Ariyoshi’s unavailability and stipulated to his dismissal. AFFIRMED. 3 23-15026