NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 7 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YI TAI SHAO, AKA Linda Yi Tai Shao, No. 14-17063
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-01137-LHK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
McMANIS FAULKNER, LLP; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Yi Tai Shao, AKA Linda Yi Tai Shao, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action alleging discrimination
and state law claims in connection with a retainer agreement between Shao and
defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
*
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).
district court’s dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations. Lukovsky v. City
& County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shao’s § 1981 discrimination claim as
time-barred because Shao failed to file her action within the applicable statute of
limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for
personal injury actions); Lukovsky, 535 F.3d at 1048 & n.2 (recognizing that
actions cognizable under the pre-1990 version of § 1981 remain subject to forum
state’s limitations period for personal injury torts).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Shao’s motion to
disqualify the district court judge and the entire Northern District of California.
See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth
standard of review and standard for recusal).
We do not consider arguments or facts that were not presented to the district
court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Shao’s contentions that the district court failed to rule on a motion to strike
and failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 are unpersuasive.
Shao’s request for judicial notice, filed on October 8, 2015, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-17063