Naora Ben-Dov v. SHOSHANA ZELDA SRAGOW, AKA Stacy Suzanne Sragow;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAORA BEN-DOV,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHOSHANA ZELDA SRAGOW, AKA
Stacy Suzanne Sragow; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56807
D.C. No. 8:17-cv-00122-DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Douglas F. McCormick, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 15, 2018***
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Naora Ben-Dov appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in her diversity action alleging state law claims in connection with her late father’s
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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).
FILED
AUG 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56807
estate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lopez
v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ben-Dov’s
action is time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc.
Code § 338 (three-year statute of limitations); Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
110 P.3d 914, 917 (Cal. 2005) (claim accrues under the delayed discovery rule
when the plaintiff has reason to suspect an injury and some wrongful cause).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to deny or strike
defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of their alleged failure to
meet and confer. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting
forth standard of review); see also Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.
2000) (“[T]he decision of a trial court is reversed under the abuse of discretion
standard only when the appellate court is convinced firmly that the reviewed
decision lies beyond the pale of reasonable justification under the circumstances.”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --