ABBY OVITSKY V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DFEH, No. 13-55221 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ABBY JO OVITSKY, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-55221 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-10142-DMGJCG v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING, MEMORANDUM* Defendant, and K12.COM, DBA California Virtual Academy, DBA Cava, DBA Delaware K12, Inc., DBA K12, Inc., DBA Washington Virtual Academy, in Washington State, DBA WAVA; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Abby Jo Ovitsky appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of standing, Canatella v. California, 304 F.3d 843, 852 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ovitsky’s claim for injunctive relief under the ADA because Ovitsky failed to allege a “real and immediate threat of repeated injury in the future.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946, 949 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 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) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, the requests for oral argument are denied. 2 13-55221

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.