Karlene K. Petitt v. David B. Altman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARLENE K. PETITT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID B. ALTMAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 23-35339
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01366-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Karlene K. Petitt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing as untimely her diversity action alleging a fraud claim under
Washington law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157
* 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).
FILED
MAR 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-35339
(9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Petitt’s action because Petitt was on
notice of her claim more than three years before she filed this action. See Young v.
Savidge, 230 P.3d 222, 230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (explaining that Washington’s
three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims “accrues when the aggrieved party
discovers, or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, the fact of
fraud, and sustains some actual damage as a result”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of
allegations Petitt made in her previous lawsuit filed against defendant in 2017. See
Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2018)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that a court may take judicial
notice of matters of public record).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitt’s post-
judgment motion because Petitt failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Petitt’s contention that the district
judge was biased against her.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --