Qin Li v. City and County of Honolulu

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIN LI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-15176
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00573-LEK-RLP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Qin Li appeals pro se from the jury verdict in her employment
discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Li waived her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
jury’s verdict by failing to move for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial
* 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
APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15176
before the district court. See Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086,
1089 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence
challenge, a party must file both a pre-verdict motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 50(a) and a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or new
trial under Rule 50(b)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --