Schoene

Schoene v. Christensen

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 16, 202624-2317California1,098 words

Opinion

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 16 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KIMBERLY M. SCHOENE, No. 24-2317 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-00693-AN v.

MEMORANDUM*

PENELOPE CHRISTENSEN, an Oregon resident; PORTLAND HAIR EXTENSIONS BY PENELOPE, an active Oregon corporation,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Adrienne C. Nelson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16, 2026**

Before: PAEZ, BENNETT, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Kimberly M. Schoene appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment dismissing her claims against Defendants, Penelope

* 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). Christensen and Portland Hair Extensions by Penelope. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

“We review grants of summary judgment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.