NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KATHRYN MARIE SEIDLER, No. 24-1489 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00816-JLR Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

AMAZON.COM, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 17, 2025**

Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Kathryn Marie Seidler appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her employment action alleging various federal and state law claims.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Seidler’s motion to

* 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). stay proceedings because Seidler failed to demonstrate a basis for relief. See

Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066

(9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court

abuses its discretion in denying a stay only if it bases its ruling on an erroneous

view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of evidence).

Contrary to Seidler’s contentions, the district court did not err by failing to

grant equitable relief, because the district court dismissed Seidler’s claims. We

reject as unsupported by the record Seidler’s contention that the district court

denied her due process.

We do not consider the district court’s dismissal of Seidler’s action because

Seidler did not address the district court’s grounds for dismissal in her opening

brief. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.

2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in

appellant’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal or documents not presented to the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587

F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th

Cir. 1990).

Seidler’s motion to seal Docket Entry No. 61.2 (Docket Entry No. 80) is

granted. Any provisionally sealed documents will remain under seal. All other

2 24-1489 pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-1489