22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T517,MEMORANDUM Virginia Legaspi appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her Labor Management Relations Act action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action where Le-gaspi’s conduct prejudiced defendants’ ability to defend the action and the court had already warned Legaspi several times that failure to comply with the court’s orders could result in dismissal of her action. See id. at 53-54 (outlining factors to consider before dismissing an action for failure to follow a district court’s local rules). Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Legaspi’s motion for leave to file an untimely opposition because her failure to prosecute was neither negligent nor excusable. See Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381-82 (9th Cir.1997) (per cu-riam) (observing that as a general rule “pro se litigants are not excused from following court rules”). Legaspi’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T549,

MEMORANDUM

Virginia Legaspi appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her Labor Management Relations Act action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action where Le-gaspi’s conduct prejudiced defendants’ ability to defend the action and the court had already warned Legaspi several times that failure to comply with the court’s orders could result in dismissal of her action. See id. at 53-54 (outlining factors to consider before dismissing an action for failure to follow a district court’s local rules).

Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Legaspi’s motion for leave to file an untimely opposition because her failure to prosecute was neither negligent nor excusable. See Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381-82 (9th Cir.1997) (per cu-riam) (observing that as a general rule “pro se litigants are not excused from following court rules”).

Legaspi’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.