BRENDA JOHNSON V. ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION CONSULT, No. 15-35959 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRENDA M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-35959 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05872-RJB MEMORANDUM* ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION CONSULTANTS CORPORATION, AKA ETCC; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Brenda M. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the imposition of * 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). discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Johnson’s action as a discovery sanction because Johnson failed to comply with multiple orders compelling her to appear for her deposition. See id. at 507-08 (setting forth factors to be considered before granting dismissal under Rule 37(b)). We reject as unsupported by the record Johnson’s contention that she did not receive notice of the court’s order scheduling Johnson’s deposition or of the December 7, 2015 hearing on defendant’s motion for sanctions. 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). We reject as unsupported by the record Johnson’s contentions that she was improperly denied counsel, copies of transcripts, or a speedy trial. All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-35959

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.