Laurie Marie Laskey v. Microsoft Corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
tk/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAURIE MARIE LASKEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17201
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01465-WHA
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Laurie Marie Laskey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her diversity action alleging, inter alia, that Microsoft Corporation was
FILED
DEC 08 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

tk/Research 08-17201 2
negligent by releasing Windows 95. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure
to comply with an order of the court. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th
Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after
Laskey repeatedly failed to file a more definite pleading after being warned that
failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 1260-62 (holding that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing after providing the litigant
with notice of the complaint’s defects and adequate time to amend).
We do not consider Laskey’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007).
Laskey’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --