Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva v. Narayan Travelstead Professional Law Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NARAYAN TRAVELSTEAD
PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION;
TIMOTHY TRAVELSTEAD, in his
capabilities as a President of the Narayan
Travelstead Professional Law Corporation;
JULIE L. CHO, in her official and individual
capacities as an Associate Attorney of the
Narayan Travelstead Professional Law
Corporation; ALAMEDA HEALTH
SYSTEM,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15654
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-02068-EMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
* 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 3 --

2 23-15654
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
judgment on the pleadings. Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009).
We affirm.
In her opening brief, Drevaleva failed to address the grounds for dismissal of
her action and has therefore waived any such challenge. See Indep. Towers of
Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we will
not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening
brief”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Drevaleva’s
requests for leave to file post-judgment pleadings because the proposed filings
were within the scope of the pre-filing order. See Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d
467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard of review); West v. Procunier, 452 F.2d 645,
646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that an order refusing to authorize filing of
complaint was a “proper exercise of the district court’s authority to effectuate
compliance with its earlier order”).
We reject as meritless Drevaleva’s contentions regarding personal
jurisdiction and that Judge Chen’s judgment was the result of fraud or criminal
conduct.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-15654
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --