Vashisht-Rota v. Ottawa University
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Andrew G. Schopler (district judge)
- Outcome
- dismissed — DISMISSED.
- Area
- civil
- Appeal from
- Vashisht-Rota v. Ottawa University (2020-11-06); Vashisht-Rota v. Ottawa University (2022-12-13); Vashisht-Rota v. Ottawa University (2023-09-22); Vashisht-Rota v. Ottawa University (2024-09-30); Vashisht-Rota v. Ottawa University (2024-11-27) — the district court's orders on this docket in the record
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, No. 24-7815 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00959-AGS-KSC Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM*
OTTAWA UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Andrew George Schopler, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Aparna Vashisht-Rota appeals pro se from the district court’s sanctions order in her diversity action alleging various employment-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction. Hunt v. Imperial Merch. Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir.
* 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). 2009). We dismiss the appeal as moot.
The district court dismissed this action for failure to state a claim before entering the sanctions order, and the only sanction the court imposed was the dismissal of a different action. Because relief from the sanctions order in this action would not afford Vashisht-Rota any remedy, the appeal is moot. See Vill. of Gambell v. Babbitt, 999 F.2d 403, 406 (9th Cir. 1993) (claim is moot if there is no present controversy for which relief can be granted).
All pending motions and requests are denied as moot.
DISMISSED.
2 24-7815