PATRINA HALL, AKA Patrina Harrison v. Ifit Health & Fitness; Icon Health & Fitness / Nordictrack; Uts

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRINA HALL, AKA Patrina Harrison,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
IFIT HEALTH & FITNESS; ICON
HEALTH & FITNESS / NORDICTRACK;
UTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16233
D.C. No. 4:21-cv-10079-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Patrina Harrison appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her state law action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
* 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
FEB 27 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16233
In her opening brief, Harrison failed to address the grounds for dismissal and
has therefore waived her challenge to the district court’s order. See Indep. Towers
of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we
cannot manufacture arguments for an appellant and therefore we will not consider
any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --