LLC v. GAURINO (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Millicent ANDRADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, Atooi Aloha, LLC, by Millicent Andrade and Craig B. Stanley, Its Managing Members; et al., Plaintiffs, v. Abner GAURINO; et al., Defendants-Appellees,
Craig B. Stanley, Counter-defendant-Appellee, v. The Edmon Keller and Cleavette Mae Stanley Family Trust, Craig B. Stanley as Trustee (Amended Crossclaim: ECF 239), Cross-defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-16755

Decided: November 16, 2020

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Millicent Andrade, Pro Se Robert D. Eheler, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Robert D. Eheler, Jr., Kaneohe, HI, for Defendants-Appellees Abner Gaurino, Abigail Gaurino Charles A. Price, Esquire, Attorney, Koshiba Agena & Kubota, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees Investors Funding Corporation, APT-320, LLC Richard P. McClellan, III, Esquire, Attorney, Richard P McClellan, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee Cristeta C. Owan Wayne P. Nasser, Esquire, Attorney, Ashford & Wriston LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees Rommel Guzman, Fidelity National Title & Escrow of Hawaii, Inc. Philip L. Lahne, Esquire, Anderson Lahne & Fujisaki LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee Association of Apartment Owners of Diamond Head Sands William Lee Shipley, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Counter-defendants-Appellees

MEMORANDUM **

Millicent Andrade appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her securities fraud action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Andrade failed to include any argument in her opening brief regarding the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), and thus has waived any challenge to that issue. See McKay v. Ingleson, 558 F.3d 888, 891 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (arguments not raised in an appellant's opening brief are waived).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Andrade's request to continue trial because a continuance on the day of trial would have seriously inconvenienced the court and defendants. United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1985) (setting forth standard and review and factors that the court should consider when reviewing the denial of a request for continuance of trial).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as meritless Andrade's contention that the district court violated her constitutional rights.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law