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:T52a,MEMORANDUM Jeannette Martello appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action challenging the constitutionality of California’s prohibition against balance billing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Martello’s action under the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings where “the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.” ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 758-59 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martello’s motion for reconsideration because Martello failed to state any grounds warranting relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). Appellees’ motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 30 and 38) are granted. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T561,

MEMORANDUM

Jeannette Martello appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action challenging the constitutionality of California’s prohibition against balance billing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Martello’s action under the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings where “the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.” ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 758-59 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martello’s motion for reconsideration because Martello failed to state any grounds warranting relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

Appellees’ motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 30 and 38) are granted.

AFFIRMED.

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