Panchos Corporation v. Gonzalez , 362 F. App'x 855 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 22 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PANCHOS CORPORATION, a Florida                  No. 07-56258
    corporation,
    D.C. No. CV-03-03002-GPS
    Plaintiff-counterdefendant
    - Appellee,
    MEMORANDUM *
    v.
    GUADALUPE BEDOYA GONZALEZ;
    ANA MARIA JOSEFINA BOJALIL
    BEDOYA,
    Defendants-counterclaimants
    - Appellants,
    and
    SIMON LOPEZ, an individual; TEATRO
    LOS PINOS, a business entity,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    George P. Schiavelli, District Judge, Presiding
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    JS/Research
    Submitted January 11, 2010 **
    Before:        BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Guadalupe Bedoya Gonzalez and Ana Maria Josefina Bojalil Bedoya appeal
    from the district court’s order dismissing their counterclaim pursuant to Federal
    Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    review for an abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 
    291 F.3d 639
    , 640 (9th
    Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the counterclaim
    because counterclaimants failed to comply fully with the court’s order to “proceed
    by default” after the court imposed less drastic sanctions and warned them that
    noncompliance would result in dismissal. See 
    id. at 642
     (listing factors that a
    district court must weigh before dismissing an action under Rule 41(b)).
    We decline to consider whether the district court abused its discretion by
    denying the motions for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) because the
    issue was not argued on appeal. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 
    350 F.3d 925
    , 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (deeming abandoned issues raised but not argued on
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly,
    counterclaimants’ request for oral argument is denied.
    JS/Research                                2                                      07-56258
    appeal).
    AFFIRMED.
    JS/Research         3   07-56258
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-56258

Citation Numbers: 362 F. App'x 855

Filed Date: 1/22/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023