Patrina Harrison v. Ifit Health & Fitness

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PATRINA HALL, AKA Patrina Harrison, No. 22-16233 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:21-cv-10079-PJH v. MEMORANDUM* IFIT HEALTH & FITNESS; ICON HEALTH & FITNESS / NORDICTRACK; UTS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2024** Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Patrina Harrison appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her state law action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. * 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).  In her opening brief, Harrison failed to address the grounds for dismissal and has therefore waived her challenge to the district court’s order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we cannot manufacture arguments for an appellant and therefore we will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 22-16233