NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENDA M. JOHNSON, No. 15-35959
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05872-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION
CONSULTANTS CORPORATION, AKA
ETCC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Brenda M. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her
employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the imposition of
*
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).
discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Payne v. Exxon
Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Johnson’s action
as a discovery sanction because Johnson failed to comply with multiple orders
compelling her to appear for her deposition. See id. at 507-08 (setting forth factors
to be considered before granting dismissal under Rule 37(b)). We reject as
unsupported by the record Johnson’s contention that she did not receive notice of
the court’s order scheduling Johnson’s deposition or of the December 7, 2015
hearing on defendant’s motion for sanctions.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Johnson’s contentions that she was
improperly denied counsel, copies of transcripts, or a speedy trial.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-35959