FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW W. SHALABY, No. 12-56415
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00068-AJB-
DHB
v.
BERNZOMATIC, an unincorporated MEMORANDUM*
division of Irwin Industrial Tool
Company; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Andrew W. Shalaby, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging products liability and related
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court’s decision to deny declaratory relief. Wagner v. Prof’l Eng’rs in Cal.
Gov’t, 354 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shalaby’s claim for declaratory relief
because, contrary to Shalaby’s contention, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is the
applicable standard for the admissibility of expert testimony in federal court. See
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 582, 597 (1993); see also
Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 563 (9th Cir. 2010) (in diversity cases, the
Federal Rules of Evidence govern generally, and in the context of the admissibility
of expert testimony, no exception applies).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a pre-filing
restriction against Shalaby after giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard,
developing an adequate record for review, making findings regarding his frivolous
litigation history, and tailoring the restriction narrowly. See Molski v. Evergreen
Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-61 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (setting forth
standard of review and discussing the four factors for imposing pre-filing
restrictions).
Shalaby lacks standing to appeal the district court’s extension of the pre-
filing restriction to his wife, Sonia Dunn-Ruiz, who was not a party below. See
Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (“It is well
2 12-56415
established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by [28 U.S.C.]
§ 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.”);
Libby, McNeill & Libby v. City Nat’l Bank, 592 F.2d 504, 511 (9th Cir. 1978)
(“[A] party may only appeal to protect its own interests. . . .”). However, if in the
future the restriction is applied to Dunn-Ruiz, she may challenge the order. See
Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[T]his court does have
jurisdiction to review orders which preclude particular litigants from filing their
pleadings.”).
Shalaby’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-56415