FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

SEP 18 2024

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HELENA KRIZEK, Birth Mother of No. 23-15026 Bianca Helen Krizek (Decedent), D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 1:18-cv-00293-JMS-WRP

v.

MEMORANDUM*

THE QUEEN’S MEDICAL CENTER;

WENDY W. HSU, official and individual capacity; HAO CHIH HO, official and individual capacity; HAWAII

RESIDENCY PROGRAM, (HRP);

NOBUHIRO ARIYOSHI, official and individual capacity,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

ITTIKORN SPANUCHART, official and individual capacity; CHRISTOPHER HAPPY, official and individual capacity;

HAWAII CORONER; CITY AND

COUNTY OF HONOLULU; T. SCOTT

GALLACHER, official and individual capacity; MATTHEW DUMOUCHEL, official and individual capacity,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 18, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Helena Krizek appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of her motion

for a new trial in a wrongful death action that proceeded against Dr. Wendy W.

Hsu, Dr. Hao Chih Ho, Dr. Nobuhiro Ariyoshi, The Queen’s Medical Center, and

Hawaii Residency Programs, Inc. (collectively, “Appellees”). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Appellees request dismissal of this appeal because Krizek’s briefing does

not cite to the record and is therefore noncompliant with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6),

(a)(8)(A). See, e.g., Han v. Stanford Univ., 210 F.3d 1038, 1039–40 (9th Cir.

2000). Because Krizek appeals pro se, we reject this request. See Lim v. I.N.S.,

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 23-15026 224 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2000); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d

696, 698–99 (9th Cir. 1988).

We decline to consider Krizek’s sole argument, made for the first time on

appeal, that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a new

trial because it improperly excused Dr. Ariyoshi from appearing at trial. By failing

to raise this argument in the district court, she waived her objection. See Padgett v.

Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); see also Armstrong v.

Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the record does not support

Krizek’s contention. It shows that she declined an opportunity to investigate the

asserted reasons for Dr. Ariyoshi’s unavailability and stipulated to his dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

3 23-15026