Bonnie Jahangiri v. Petsmart, Inc. , 714 F. App'x 731 ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 2 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BONNIE M. JAHANGIRI, No. 15-35288
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01577-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PETSMART, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
John V. Acosta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 28, 2018**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Bonnie Jahangiri appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment after a
jury trial in her diversity action against PetSmart, Inc., awarding her damages on
her negligence claim but finding her 45 percent at fault. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
The district court erred in refusing to compel PetSmart to provide, if it could
do so without undue burden, the names of other customers who were present at
around the time of the accident and who may have been able to corroborate
Jahangiri's version of the event. However, Jahangiri has not shown that she was
prejudiced by this ruling inasmuch as her testimony about how the accident
happened, and that of PetSmart's witness, did not differ in any way that mattered to
the outcome. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir.
2003) (holding that party seeking discovery must show that denial resulted in
prejudice).
The district court properly excluded special damages evidence pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(C) on the ground that the evidence was
late-filed and disorganized. See Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052,
1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming exclusion of untimely-identified expert testimony
at summary judgment); Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 787 (9th Cir. 2011)
(holding that violations of a scheduling order may result in sanctions, including
dismissal).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in responding to a jury
question regarding lost wages damages. See Harrington v. Scribner, 785 F.3d
1299, 1304 (9th Cir. 2015); C.B. v. City of Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005, 1020 (9th Cir.
2014).
2
AFFIRMED.
3