Tatyana Drevaleva v. Narayan Travelstead Professional Law Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, No. 23-15654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