Williams James v. Bank of America, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA K. WILLIAMS JAMES, No. 24-3870 D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00312-JAO-RT Plaintiff - Appellant, and MEMORANDUM* NATHAN EARL AIWOHI, TOBY ALAMOANA KEOHOKAPU, DARLENE K. EBOS, as successive Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara Anita Baliguat, SUSAN DeSHAW, THOMAS JOHNSON, LAZARA A. RODRIGUEZ, JULIE NICOLAS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Jill A. Otake, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Submitted January 22, 2026** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Maria K. Williams James appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing a putative class action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. by Bank of America, N.A., and The Bank of New York Mellon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. Because Williams James does not challenge the district court’s grounds for dismissal of her action in her opening brief, we do not consider that decision. 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”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (explaining that issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are deemed abandoned). AFFIRMED. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 24-3870