NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, No. 23-55740

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00900-AGS-KSC

v.

MEMORANDUM*

BLUECHIP SERVICES, (International), An India Private Limited Company; BLUECHIP

SERVICES INTERNATIONAL CHENNAI,

An India Private Limited Company;

MOHAMMED HARISS; MUBEEN TAJ;

HOWELL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A

Utah LLC; CHRIS HOWELL; JUSTIN

SPENCER,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Andrew G. Schopler, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 22, 2025**

Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Aparna Vashisht-Rota appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* 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). dismissing her diversity action alleging various state law claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to

comply with a court order); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th

Cir. 1998) (dismissal for failure to prosecute). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Vashisht-Rota’s

action without prejudice because Vashisht-Rota failed to serve defendants in India

for over two years before the district court set a final 90-day deadline, and

Vashisht-Rota failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to comply with that deadline.

See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 640-43 (discussing the five factors for determining

whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and explaining that

dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the

district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)

(explaining that this court may review the record independently if the district court

does not make explicit findings to show its consideration of the factors).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vashisht-Rota’s

motions to serve defendants in India by alternative methods because the court

determined that Vashisht-Rota did not demonstrate diligent efforts to use Hague

Convention procedures to effect service. See Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798,

2 23-55740 805-806 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that

although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) permits a variety of alternative

methods of service, plaintiffs “must obtain prior court approval for the alternative

method of serving process”).

Vashisht-Rota’s motion to submit proof of service (Docket Entry No. 5) is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 23-55740