Laurie Marie Laskey v. Rcn Corporation, a Delaware 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
RCN CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17557
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01333-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: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Laurie Marie Laskey appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment on statute of limitations grounds in her diversity of citizenship action
FILED
DEC 08 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

tk/Research 08-17557 2
against RCN Corporation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med., Inc., 343 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.
2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Laskey failed
to controvert RCN’s evidence that her claims were barred by the applicable statutes
of limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (providing a two-year statute of
limitations for personal injury and product liability claims); Cal Civ. Proc. Code
§ 338(b) (providing a three-year statute of limitations for injury to property); Cal.
Civ. Code § 1708.7 (providing a three-year statute of limitations for stalking); Cal.
Civ. Code § 1798.96 (providing a four-year statute of limitations for identity theft).
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.
Laskey’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --