C. Alexandra Telluselle v. Hawaii Pacific University; Erleina Danao

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
C. ALEXANDRA TELLUSELLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAWAII PACIFIC UNIVERSITY;
ERLEINA DANAO,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17191
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00343-BMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Barry M. Kurren, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 10, 2013***
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
C. Alexandra Telluselle appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of her
FILED
JUN 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-17191 2
enrollment in a graduate degree program on an international student visa from
Sweden. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Darensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm’n, 636 F.3d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Telluselle’s Title
VI claim because Telluselle failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants’ allegedly favorable treatment of other Swedish international
students constituted discrimination against her on the basis of national origin. See
id. at 522 (setting forth elements of Title VI prima facie discrimination claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Telluselle’s
negligence claim because Telluselle failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendants owed her any duty to transfer credits from a Swedish
university or to provide her academic, immigration, or other counseling. See
Kaho’Ohanohano v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 178 P.3d 538, 562-63 (Haw. 2008)
(setting forth elements of a negligence claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Telluselle’s breach
of contract claim because Telluselle failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether the parties entered into an express or implied contract in which
defendants made promises regarding academic counseling or transferring credits.

-- 2 of 3 --

12-17191 3
See Chuck Jones & MacLaren v. Williams, 71 P.3d 437, 451 (Haw. Ct. App. 2003)
(setting forth elements of a breach of contract claim).
We do not consider issues raised for the first time either on appeal or in
Telluselle’s reply brief, including with respect to alleged discrimination based on
disability or defendants’ alleged failure to produce documents. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Telluselle’s contentions regarding the district court’s alleged failure to
review all the evidence and defendants’ alleged failure to cooperate with
immigration officials are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --