Abby Jo Ovitsky v. State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABBY JO OVITSKY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING,
Defendant,
and
K12.COM, DBA California Virtual
Academy, DBA Cava, DBA Delaware
K12, Inc., DBA K12, Inc., DBA
Washington Virtual Academy, in
Washington State, DBA WAVA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-55221
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-10142-DMG-
JCG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
FEB 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Abby Jo Ovitsky appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) and various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of standing, Canatella v.
California, 304 F.3d 843, 852 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ovitsky’s claim for injunctive relief
under the ADA because Ovitsky failed to allege a “real and immediate threat of
repeated injury in the future.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,
946, 949 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
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)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, the requests for
oral argument are denied.
13-55221 2

-- 2 of 2 --