JEANNETTE MARTELLO V. SHELLEY ROUILLARD, No. 15-56185 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 25 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEANNETTE MARTELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-56185 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01798-CAS-AJW v. MEMORANDUM* SHELLEY ROUILLARD, In her official capacity as Director of the California Department of Managed Health Care; KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER, In her official capacity as Director of the Medical Board of California, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jeannette Martello appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action challenging the constitutionality of California’s prohibition * 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). Martello’s request for oral argument set forth in her opening brief is denied. against balance billing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Martello’s action under the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings where “the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.” ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 758-59 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martello’s motion for reconsideration because Martello failed to state any grounds warranting relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). Appellees’ motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 30 and 38) are granted. AFFIRMED. 2 15-56185
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
