671 Fed.Appx. 450 (9th Cir. 2016), 15-55298, Henderson v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Docket Nº:15-55298
Citation:671 Fed.Appx. 450
Party Name:ROBERT HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Attorney:ROBERT HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Santa Monica, CA. For JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee: George G. Weickhardt, Esquire, ROPERS MAJESKI KOHN AND BENTLEY, San Francicco, CA. For ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Defendant - Appellee: Peter M. Bransten, Esquire, Landau Gottfried ...
Judge Panel:Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 23, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 450

671 Fed.Appx. 450 (9th Cir. 2016)

ROBERT HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-55298

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 23, 2016

Submitted November 16, 2016 [**]

Editorial Note:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 2:14-cv-05960-DDP-PJW. Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERT HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Santa Monica, CA.

For JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee: George G. Weickhardt, Esquire, ROPERS MAJESKI KOHN AND BENTLEY, San Francicco, CA.

For ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Defendant - Appellee: Peter M. Bransten, Esquire, Landau Gottfried & Berger LLP, Oakland, CA.

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Robert Henderson appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action alleging fraud and theft in connection with his veteran's benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order.

Page 451

Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Henderson's action because Henderson failed to comply with court-ordered discovery even after the district court warned him that noncompliance could result in dismissal, and granted him three months to show good cause for his noncompliance. See id. (setting forth the five factors the district court must consider...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP