Wood v. Eikenberry

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDREA CLAIRE WOOD, No. 24-4321 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-00170-MMD- Plaintiff - Appellant, CLB v. MEMORANDUM* KEVIN EIKENBERRY; CLEMENT HOLDINGS; SGT INVESTMENTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 19, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Andrea Claire Wood appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action related to property in California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a * 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). dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Wood’s action because Wood failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause regarding improper venue despite a warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action. See id. at 1227-29 (discussing the five factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 24-4321